Hobsons Bay City Council
13 December 2016
Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda
Appendix 7
Amendment C107 – Mobil Altona Refinery
– Proposed Removal of Heritage Overlay
Planning and Environment Act 1987 Panel Report Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C107 9 November 2016 Planning and Environment Act 1987 Panel Report pursuant to section 25 of the Act Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C107 9 November 2016 Margaret Pitt, Chair Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  9 November 2016 Contents 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 2 Page The Amendment ...................................................................................................... 1 Background to the proposal .................................................................................... 2 Procedural issues ..................................................................................................... 3 Summary of issues made in submission .................................................................. 3 Issues raised by the Panel ....................................................................................... 4 Issues dealt with in this Report ............................................................................... 4 Planning context ......................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Policy framework ..................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Ministerial Directions and Practice Notes ............................................................... 8 2.3 Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 9 3 Issues ........................................................................................................................ 10 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Impact of the HO on future development of the refinery .................................... 10 Appropriateness of heritage outcomes ................................................................ 12 Assessment of alternative approaches ................................................................. 15 Net community benefit ......................................................................................... 17 List of Figures Page Figure 1 The subject site ........................................................................................................ 1 Figure 2 Aerial view of subject site ..................................................................................... 10 List of Abbreviations CMP Conservation Management Plan DELWP Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning EPA Environment Protection Authority HO Heritage Overlay LPPF Local Planning Policy Framework MSS Municipal Strategic Statement SPPF State Planning Policy Framework Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  9 November 2016 Overview Amendment Summary The Amendment Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C107 Brief description Deletion of Heritage Overlay HO202 Subject site Mobil Refinery, 351‐381 Millers Road, Altona The Proponent Mobil Refining Australia Pty Ltd c/o Tract Consultants Planning Authority Hobsons Bay City Council Authorisation AO3328 dated 2 May 2016 Exhibition 26 May to 10 July 2016 Submissions Number of Submissions: 1  David Clark (opposed) Panel Process The Panel Margaret Pitt (Chair) appointed 24 August 2016 Directions Hearing None held Panel Hearing Hobsons Bay, Wednesday 12 October 2016 Site Inspections Accompanied, Wednesday 12 October 2016 Appearances  Hobsons Bay City Council represented by Robyn Olsen, Coordinator, Strategic Planning Projects  Mobil Refining Australia represented by Katie Murphy (Tract Consultants), Tara Horsnell (Mobil Refining Australia) and Gary Vines (Heritage Consultant, Biosis) Date of this Report 9 November 2016 Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  9 November 2016 Executive Summary (i)
Summary Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C107 (‘the Amendment’) proposes to delete the Heritage Overlay (HO) from the Mobil Altona Refinery and make minor changes to Clauses 21.06, 22.01, 37.01 and 43.01. Background In August 2003, Amendment C17 Part 2 applied HO202 to the site of the Mobil Altona Refinery at 351‐381 Millers Road. In recent years, Council has issued permits to demolish three substantial structures on the site, all of which had been assessed as being of ‘primary significance’ to the heritage place. Mobil Refineries Australia Pty Ltd (‘Mobil’) is now seeking to have the HO removed from the site on the grounds that ‘the removal of heritage fabric is considered a necessary and appropriate part of the operation and modernisation of the Altona refinery’. Mobil proposes to recognise the heritage values of the site through the preparation of a Conservation Management Plan (CMP) including photographic archival records. Key issue raised in submissions Planning Authority The key issue for the Council was supporting the continued operation of the refinery as a major economic and employment activity within the municipality. Council submitted that a Conservation Management Plan is an adequate mechanism to acknowledge the heritage values of this site. Proponent The key issue for the proponent was the need for the flexibility to respond quickly to the market demands and new technologies of the industry as they emerge. The proponent also supported the archival recording of heritage fabric, which is now nearly completed. Submitter The sole submitter objected to the Amendment on the grounds that the site has significant heritage value, as established when the HO was applied only a short time ago. Issues considered by the Panel: After considering the submissions and other material provided by the parties, together with observations from the site inspection, the following issues were identified by the Panel:  To what extent does the HO impede future development of the refinery?  Does the Amendment provide an appropriate heritage outcome?  Are there viable alternatives to removal of the HO from the entire site?  Where does net community benefit lie? Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  9 November 2016 (ii)
Conclusions Based on its consideration of all the issues, the Panel concludes that:  The concept of ‘net community benefit’ lies at the heart of this Amendment.  The presence of the HO can complicate the process of forward planning for future development of the refinery, given the number, role, interdependence and/or location of the significant structures within the plant.  The Conservation Management Plan in its present form does not include enough material to qualify as an adequate historical archive of the refinery’s historic, social, technical and aesthetic significance.  The concept of ‘conservation by use’ has not been the subject of rigorous testing or wide acceptance in the heritage community to date, and the Panel is not persuaded of its merits. The argument put forward in relation to the concept of ‘conservation by use’ in relation to the Mobil site is more an economic argument than a heritage argument.  Net community benefit can best be achieved by ensuring the continuing economic use and development of the refinery, provided that an appropriate legacy of the site’s heritage significance remains.  The legacy should comprise continuing heritage protection for the original Administration building, and a comprehensive archive of the site’s significance in an improved CMP.  Because the CMP will have no statutory status, it should be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority prior to approval of the Amendment. (iii)
Recommendations Based on the reasons set out in this Report, the Panel recommends that Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C107 be adopted as exhibited, subject to the following modifications: 1.
Reduce the area of HO202 to include only the original 1948 Administration building and a curtilage bounded by Millers Road to the west, the entrance roadway to the north, the southern boundary of the outdoor eating area to the south, and the western walls of the two main buildings to the east. 2.
Expand the Conservation Management Plan to include the following material: a)
A clear description (with diagrams) of the way the refinery process works. b)
An aerial photograph showing the location of each of the significant structures, such as the one submitted at the hearing (Figure 72 on p.65 is inadequate for this purpose). c)
A more comprehensive description of each of the existing and demolished structures of Primary and Contributory Significance, including its history, function and construction materials (with multiple photographs, including interiors where possible). d)
Copies of primary archival material such as plans, technical drawings, letters, brochures, contracts, advertisements etc. Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  9 November 2016 3.
Change the title ‘Conservation Management Plan’ to more accurately reflect the document’s role, purpose and contents. 4.
Require the Conservation Management Plan to be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority prior to approval of the Amendment. (iv)
Further recommendations In this report the Panel is critical of the exhibited documentation for the following reasons:  It does not explain clearly the rationale for the Amendment – i.e. how the HO is incompatible with the operation of the refinery.  It does not acknowledge that the removal of the HO will result in the loss of significant heritage assets, and is inconsistent with State and local heritage policy.  It does not explain how competing economic and heritage objectives have been balanced to achieve net community benefit. The Panel therefore makes the following further recommendation: 5.
In drafting Explanatory Reports, Council should take care that its approach to balancing competing objectives is transparent. Outcomes that are inconsistent with a particular policy but result in net community benefit should be acknowledged. Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  9 November 2016 1
Introduction 1.1
The Amendment (i)
Amendment description The Amendment proposes to:  Amend the Schedule to the HO at Clause 43.01‐1 to delete HO202.  Amend Clauses 21.06 (Built Environment and Heritage) and 22.01 (Heritage Policy) to replace the reference to the Hobsons Bay Heritage Study Amended 2014 to the Hobsons Bay Heritage Study Amended 2016.  Amend Schedule 2 to clause 37.01 (Petroleum Refinery Area) to delete an incorrect reference to clause 62.01. (ii)
Purpose of the Amendment The purpose of the Amendment is to remove the restrictions imposed by the HO in order to facilitate the operation and modernisation of the refinery. (iii)
The subject site The Amendment applies to land recognised as the Mobil Refinery in Altona. This amendment applies only to part of the land situated north of Kororoit Creek Road, bounded by Millers Road to the west, and the industrial rail line to the north and east. The land is in the Special Use Zone Schedule 2 (Petroleum Refinery Area) and is subject to the HO. There are no other planning controls affecting the site. Figure 1 The subject site
Page 1 Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  9 November 2016 The subject site is located within a ‘Core Industrial Area’ as shown in Map 3 of Clause 21.08 (Economic Development). 1.2
Background to the proposal The HO was applied to the subject site in 2003 as part of Amendment C17 Part 2 (after being considered by a Panel as C17 Part A). In its report on C17 Part A, the Panel reached the following conclusions on the site: The Panel accepts that the Mobil site in Miller Street, Altona, is of local heritage significance for reasons relating to its industrial, social and economic role in the community. For this reason, the whole of the site should be identified in the Heritage Overlay. However, in order to strike an appropriate balance between planning objectives relating to heritage and economic and social objectives relating to maintenance of a viable petroleum industry, the Panel also concludes that the amendment should be varied to include an Incorporated Document that excludes all parts of the site from the requirement for planning permits pursuant to Clause 43.01. Although the HO was applied, no action was taken on preparing the proposed Incorporated Plan. Permits for demolition of two significant structures on the subject site were issued by Council between 2003 and 2014. At a meeting with Council on 7 July 2014, Mobil was asked to prepare a Conservation Management Plan and Incorporated Plan. These documents were submitted to Council on 21 May 2015, together with a request for a Planning Scheme Amendment to remove the HO from the site. During this period Council appears to have concluded that if the HO were to be removed, an Incorporated Plan would not be required and that it would be appropriate for the Conservation Management Plan to become the sole mechanism for determining heritage outcomes on the site. At a meeting on 24 June 2015, Council requested further information to support the request. This was provided by Mobil in the form of a letter dated 20 August 2015. On 12 April 2016, Council resolved to support preparation of Amendment C107 and request authorisation under s.8A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The request for authorisation was forwarded to the Department of Environment, Land Water and Planning (DELWP), who requested further information on the site and the significant structures. Council provided further information on 29 April 2016. Amendment C107 was authorised on 2 May 2016 and exhibited from 26 May to 10 July 2016. The Explanatory Report sets out the following justification under the heading ‘Why is the Amendment required’: Over the past ten years, Mobil has been granted permits to remove heritage fabric including the Thermofor Catalytic Cracking Unit and two1 administration buildings. The removal of further heritage fabric at the Refinery in the future is likely, as Mobil continue to modernise the Refinery. The Refinery is an industry of State significance and a major employer in the City of Hobsons Bay. 1
One of the administration buildings was located outside the HO area. Page 2 Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  9 November 2016 The Mobil Altona Refinery must regularly invest in, upgrade and replace new plant and equipment to maintain best practice in terms of operational, technological and environmental efficiencies, meet market demands and comply with increased health and safety regulations to ensure the long term viability of the refinery and provide job security for personnel. Buildings and major equipment may also need to be demolished so that available space can be used and to contain operations within the perimeter of the site and avoid expansion beyond the current site boundaries. The minor changes proposed to Clauses 21.06 and 22.01 are to amend the date of the Hobsons Bay Heritage Study to reflect the latest amendments. The change to Schedule 2 to the Special Use Zone is to delete an incorrect reference under ‘buildings and works’ to the requirements of Clause 62.01, which relate to use. 1.3
Procedural issues Because the range of issues was relatively narrow, the Panel elected to simplify the process of assessing the Amendment. In lieu of a Directions Hearing, the Panel directed that a brief Public Hearing be held, at which Council and/or the Proponent were to provide responses to seven specific questions put by the Panel (see Section 1.5 below). The Hearing was followed by a detailed site inspection. 1.4
Summary of issues made in submission The key issues raised in the submissions of the parties are briefly summarised as follows: (i)
Planning Authority The key issue for the Council was supporting the continued operation of the refinery as a major economic and employment activity within the municipality. Council also submitted that the requirement to prepare a Conservation Management Plan for the site (including photographic archival records) is an appropriate way to acknowledge the heritage values of this site. (ii)
Proponent The key issue for the proponent was the need for the flexibility to respond quickly to market demands and new technologies of the industry as they emerge. The proponent also supported the archival recording of heritage fabric, which is now nearly completed. (iii)
Individual submitter The sole submitter objected to the Amendment on the following grounds: From the stories I have been told regarding the area and the refinery, I feel the site has significant heritage value. As the existing Heritage overlay was applied only a short time ago in 2003, others clearly agree with the significance of the site. Page 3 Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  9 November 2016 1.5
Issues raised by the Panel After reading all the documentation provided as part of the Amendment, the Panel was not satisfied that the strategic justification of the Amendment had been adequately explained, and was therefore not prepared to assess the Amendment ‘on the papers’. The Panel directed Council and/or the Proponent to provide the following information at the hearing:  An explanation of why the continuing use of the site is incompatible with the Heritage Overlay.  An outline of future development plans for the site, including a plan showing structures that are now redundant, and copies of any future plans or a masterplan for the site if available.  An explanation of how the Amendment supports and implements Clause 15.03‐1 of the SPPF, as stated in the Explanatory Report.  Given that the site has been assessed as meeting four heritage criteria (historic, social, technical and aesthetic significance), an explanation of how the Amendment is consistent with Article 5 of the Burra Charter, as stated in the Explanatory Report.  An explanation of how the Amendment is consistent with the Clause 22.01‐11 (Industrial heritage places policy), as stated in the Explanatory Report.  An explanation of the statutory status (i.e. enforceability) of the Conservation Management Plan.  A response to the submission, which draws attention to the assessment of heritage significance, made in 2003 and opposes any change. These questions were addressed by Council and/or Mobil and discussed at the hearing. The issues arising from both the discussion and the inspection of the site can be summarised as follows:  To what extent does the HO impede future development of the refinery?  Does the Amendment provide an appropriate heritage outcome?  Are there viable alternatives to removal of the HO from the entire site?  Where does net community benefit lie? 1.6
Issues dealt with in this Report The Panel has considered the written submission made in response to the exhibition of the Amendment, as well as all the submissions and other material presented by the parties both before and during the Hearing, and observations from the site inspection. This report deals with the issues under the following headings:  Planning context  Issues: - Impact of the HO on future development of the refinery - Appropriateness of heritage outcomes - Assessment of alternative approaches - Net community benefit Page 4 Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  9 November 2016 2
Planning context Council provided a response to the Strategic Assessment Guidelines as part of the Explanatory Report. The Panel has reviewed the policy context of the Amendment and made a brief appraisal of the relevant planning strategies. 2.1
Policy framework (i)
State Planning Policy Framework Clause 15.03‐1 (Heritage) of the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) provides the overarching policy context for heritage protection in Victoria. The objective of the clause is: To ensure the conservation of places of heritage significance. The Explanatory Report states that the Amendment supports this clause. Clause 17 of the SPPF sets out policies for economic development, including protection of State‐significant industrial land at Clause 17.02‐3. The strategy is to: Protect large areas of industrial land of state significance to ensure availability of land for major industrial development, particularly for industries and storage facilities that require significant threshold distances from sensitive or incompatible uses. The Explanatory Report states that the Amendment supports these clauses. The Panel does not agree that the Amendment supports Clause 15.03‐1 as it removes statutory heritage protection for a significant site. This should have been specifically acknowledged in the Explanatory Report as part of the strategic justification for the Amendment. (ii)
Local Planning Policy Framework The Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) contains detailed objectives, policies and strategies relating directly to the issues raised by the Amendment. The most relevant extracts are repeated below: 21.02 Hobsons Bay Key Issues and Strategic Vision Key issues:  Protecting National and State significant industries, including some of Victoria’s largest petroleum, chemical and manufacturing industries from encroachment of residential or other sensitive uses.  Supporting the growth, development and expansion of industrial enterprises in Core and Secondary industrial areas. Strategic Vision  Recognises the contribution of its National and State significant and major industrial enterprises and protects and supports their continued operations. 21.06‐2 Heritage Objective 1 To protect and conserve places and precincts of heritage significance in Hobsons Bay. Page 5 Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  9 November 2016 Strategies  Avoid the demolition of buildings, or works that contribute to the value of a heritage place or precinct, particularly the incremental loss of contributory heritage places within heritage precincts which will erode heritage character and adversely affect the integrity of these places.  Encourage the conservation of elements that contribute to the significance of a heritage place or precinct in accordance with the principles and procedures recommended by the Australia ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance (the Burra Charter). Objective 2 To ensure that new development responds positively and enhances the unique and valued character of heritage places and precincts within Hobsons Bay. Strategies  Discourage the demolition of heritage places unless it can be demonstrated that:  In the case of an industrial heritage place, it will facilitate the historic use of the place and will not result in the loss of fabric considered to be of primary significance. Objective 3 To improve awareness, understanding and appreciation of the value of heritage places and the significance of twentieth century heritage, including significant industrial places. Strategies  Ensure places of cultural heritage are conserved and, where appropriate, are interpreted. Implementation  Promote the importance and value of the cultural heritage of Hobsons Bay to improve understanding and appreciation of heritage places and the significance of twentieth century heritage, including significant industrial places.  Require a photographic record of the building where approval has been granted for its demolition, where appropriate. 21.08 Economic Development Objective 1 To stimulate and facilitate appropriate industrial activity and employment opportunities. Strategies  Support the growth and development of industrial development in Core and Secondary Industrial Areas. 22.01‐11 Industrial Heritage Places Policy Policy basis The conservation of industrial heritage places presents specific management issues, as it is often the use of the site that is of primary historical significance. While fabric such as buildings or plant contributes to the significance of industrial heritage places by illustrating development over time, the on‐going replacement and upgrading of this fabric is often an integral part of the operation of the use. ‘Conservation by use’ is an important heritage principle and on this basis, there may be circumstances Page 6 Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  9 November 2016 where it may be appropriate to permit the removal or alteration of fabric if it will facilitate the historic use of a site and ensure its future viability. Objectives  To ensure the continued viability of industrial heritage places for the uses and processes historically carried out on the site as an essential part of their significance and conservation.  To increase awareness about the importance of industrial heritage in the municipality.  To ensure that heritage issues are given appropriate consideration at an early stage when making decisions about the future use and development of industrial sites.  To retain the distinctive cultural heritage significance of industrial heritage places which is derived from:  The traditional and on‐going use of industrial heritage places over a long period;  The important influence of the industrial heritage places on the economic and social development of the city;  The probable national significance of the Newport, Spotswood and North Altona region as one of the most historically important centres in relation to the development of the petroleum and petrochemical industries in Australia;  The surviving examples of early industrial building types, plant and equipment;  The associated infrastructure such as railways, pipe‐lines, roads and wharves that are essential in understanding the complex historical interrelationships that occurred in the development of industries (particularly the petroleum and petrochemical industries) in the area. Policy Where a permit is required by the Heritage Overlay, it is policy that applications for development should have regard to:  The continued viability of the historic use of the site;  The balance between achievement of conservation objectives and economic viability, and occupational health and safety;  The conservation of fabric of primary significance unless the fabric has been made redundant and is to be replaced by new buildings, plant or equipment;  The retention of fabric of primary significance that is (no) longer used in‐situ if there is not an immediate need to remove or relocate it;  Keeping an appropriate record of any significant fabric that is removed or demolished and is made to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Decision Guidelines It is policy that before deciding on an application the Responsible Authority consider, as appropriate:  Whether the proposed buildings, works or demolition will support the viability of the historic industrial use carried out on the site;  Whether there is an opportunity for redundant equipment to remain in‐situ as historic evidence or for interpretation;  Whether the proposed interpretation will provide adequate information about the historic use and development of the site. Page 7 Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  9 November 2016 22.02 Industry Policy basis The Council has a responsibility to the State and the region to help ensure the continuing viability of major industries within its borders. Major industries are substantial employers and are vital elements in Victoria’s economic prosperity. These industries also attract further investment within the area and substantially contribute to the rate base of the municipality. Objectives  To facilitate appropriate industrial activity and employment opportunities within the municipality. The Explanatory Report states that the Amendment supports and implements the relevant provisions of the LPPF. The Panel agrees that the Amendment is consistent with policies and strategies relating to economic development and industry. However, the fact that for the most part it is inconsistent with Council’s own heritage policies and strategies was not acknowledged in the Explanatory Report. 2.2
Ministerial Directions and Practice Notes The Amendment is required to meet the requirements of the following relevant Ministerial Directions and Planning Practice Notes. The Form and Content of Planning Schemes The Amendment is consistent with the Ministerial Direction on the Form and Content of Planning Schemes under Section 7(5) of the Act. Strategic Assessment of Amendments While the Explanatory Report is consistent with most elements of Ministerial Direction No 11 (Strategic Assessment of Amendments), it is inadequate in the following areas:  It does not explain clearly the rationale for the Amendment – i.e. how the HO is incompatible with the operation of the refinery.  It does not acknowledge that the removal of the HO will ultimately result in the loss of significant heritage assets. These matters are discussed in more detail in Chapter 3 of this report. Metropolitan Strategy The Amendment is consistent with Ministerial Direction No 9, which identifies the refinery as part of the Western Industrial Precinct, a core industrial area that is to be protected for economic development and employment. Applying the Heritage Overlay The Amendment is not consistent with the principles outlined in Planning Practice Note 01, as claimed in the Explanatory Report. In accordance with those principles, the subject site was identified as significant in a local heritage study under four separate heritage criteria Page 8 Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  9 November 2016 (historic, social, technical and aesthetic) and assessed as having sufficient heritage value to warrant the application of the overlay. However, the Practice Note covers the application of the HO, not its removal. Any decision to remove an HO where there is extant significant fabric will by its nature be inconsistent with the Practice Note. However, such a decision will be the outcome of balancing heritage objectives against other planning objectives relevant to a particular site. 2.3
Conclusion In the previous sections, the Panel has been critical of the way that the Amendment documentation does not adequately address the fundamental issue raised by this Amendment, which is the balancing of competing objectives – in this case heritage conservation and economic development. This is the key issue for the Amendment, and should have been acknowledged and addressed in the Explanatory Report, a key document for understanding the justification for every planning scheme amendment. This issue is addressed in Chapter 3 of this report. Page 9 Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  9 November 2016 3
Issues 3.1
Impact of the HO on future development of the refinery (i)
Discussion The submissions from Mobil at the hearing and in particular, the site inspection, provided a much clearer understanding of the way the site operates and the complexities imposed by the HO than that given in the Explanatory Report or in other documentation provided to the Panel prior to the hearing, which suggested that some elements are discrete rather than inter‐dependent. In essence, the refinery generally works as an integrated system, and all operational elements are functionally and physically linked through a vast network of pipes. The upgrade of one part of the plant generally results in a need to modify or replace downstream equipment. Figure 2 below illustrates the complexity of the plant. Figure 2 Aerial view of subject site The significant and contributory elements of the site can be divided into three categories:  Operational elements in use and subject to upgrade/replacement over time  Redundant operational elements occupying valuable space  Non‐operational buildings (administration, amenities etc). The Panel does not fully accept the evidence of Mobil that the HO represents the major obstacle to the refinery’s development. Some of the difficulties described by Mobil in their submissions arise from the annual budget cycle imposed by the parent company in the United States, which appears to hamper preparation of even medium‐term planning. The Panel also notes that the refinery is in a Special Use Zone, Schedule 2 (Petroleum refinery area). The purposes of the schedule are: To provide for the operation and modernisation of the petroleum refining industry in a manner that does not affect the safety and amenity of nearby residential areas. Page 10 Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  9 November 2016 To provide for the orderly and proper development of the area and for adequate landscaping to reduce the visual impact of the refinery. Under the schedule, a permit is required for buildings and works. While there is a permit exemption for works to ‘rearrange, alter or renew plant if the areas of plant external to existing buildings is not increased’ and some minor works, any significant changes would require both a planning permit and, in many cases, further permits/licences/approvals under EPA and safety legislation. It was not explained clearly to the Panel why, under a comprehensive forward planning process at the refinery, the HO and other permit application processes could not run in parallel. The only reasons offered were the time required to determine and design the downstream consequences of new equipment, and the uncertainty of the funding cycle. However, it is clear that the refinery is a critical economic and employment centre for the municipality (it employs 350 staff) and it plays a significant role in the State’s economy. The following summary of the refinery’s role is taken from Council’s submission: The refinery is an industry of State significance located in a core industrial precinct of Hobsons Bay. The refinery supplies half of Victoria’s fuel needs, playing a very important role in Victoria’s fuel supply chain and transport system. It produces around 12 million litres of refined products per day (enough to fuel 300,000 cars). The refinery operates 24 hours a day, 365 days a year processing crude oil in to the full range of petroleum products, including unleaded petrol (60%) diesel (30%) and jet fuel (19%). The refining process involves imported crude oil arriving either via tanker at Gellibrand wharf in Williamstown and being transported to the refinery by pipeline or tanker, or Victorian crude oil being transported by pipeline from Gippsland/Bass Strait oil and gas fields. At the refinery, the crude oil goes through various processes and the refined products are pumped into storage tanks to await distribution. There are almost 100 tanks at the refinery. Around 90% of products are then transported by pipeline from the refinery to Mobil’s Yarraville terminal and other oil company terminals for distribution by road throughout Victoria and parts of New South Wales and South Australia. Jet fuel is transported directly by pipeline to Somerton and then to Melbourne Airport. The refinery supplies LPG as feedstock to the nearby Altona chemical complex, which in turn supplies feedstock to other petrochemical plants in Altona. These plants produce the raw materials from which a multitude of consumer products are made including adhesives, plastics, film, wire insulation, car batteries and tyres. In this context, it is important that the planning system supports the continued operation and development of the site. (ii)
Conclusion The Panel accepts that the presence of the HO can complicate the process of forward planning for future development of the refinery, given the number, role, interdependence and/or location of the significant structures within the plant. Page 11 Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  9 November 2016 3.2
Appropriateness of heritage outcomes (i)
Level of statutory protection proposed It is important to note that none of the parties to the hearing disputed the heritage values of the refinery and its structures. The arguments put before the Panel were about the most appropriate means of protecting those values, given the operating requirements of the site. The Amendment proposes to remove HO202 from the entire site, and to introduce a Conservation Management Plan (CMP) as the sole means of heritage protection. In response to the Panel’s question about the statutory status of the CMP, Council advised that the CMP would be included in the Planning Scheme as a Reference Document. However, the Amendment documentation makes no provision for this to occur. The only mention of the CMP is its listing as a ‘reference’ in the Statement of Significance (SOS). The SOS is included in the Hobsons Bay Heritage Study Amended 2016, which is itself a Reference Document. In the Panel’s view, there are three problems with this approach:  First, there is no statutory requirement to take the CMP into account as there is no permit trigger in the absence of the HO.  Second, the Industrial Places Heritage Policy at Clause 22.11 cannot be taken into account in decision‐making because it specifically applies only to instances where ‘a permit is required by the Heritage Overlay’.  Third, even if heritage matters could be taken into account, the CMP does not have any status in the Planning Scheme as it merely listed as a ‘reference’ in a Reference Document. This outcome clearly does not represent a ‘new planning policy framework’ for the refinery, as claimed in the Explanatory Report. Instead, it removes all statutory heritage protection from the site. (ii)
The Conservation Management Plan The Panel also considers that the term ‘Conservation Management Plan’ is a misnomer in this case. The document covers the following areas:  Introduction  Historic Background  Description of the Study Area  Comparative Assessment  Significance (including assessment against criteria and revised SOS2)  Conservation Policies Guidelines and Actions 2
The revised SOS has assessed the site as meeting seven heritage criteria, as opposed to the four criteria cited in the current SOS. The three additional criteria are Criterion B (rarity), Criterion C (research potential) and Criterion D (representativeness). Page 12 Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  9 November 2016 It is important to note that the section titled Conservation Policies Guidelines and Actions is framed in the context of acceptance that the significant structures will ultimately be demolished. Not one of the seven ‘Management Actions’ calls for protection, conservation or even maintenance of any of the remaining heritage structures on the site. The table on page 68 shows the plans for each of the eleven structures of Primary Significance, none of which includes preservation, restoration or maintenance of original fabric. In other words, there is no ‘conservation’ in the Conservation Management Plan, and it should perhaps be given a more appropriate title. The Heritage Council of Victoria’s 2010 publication Conservation Management Plans – a Guide defines a CMP as follows: A CMP is the principal guiding document for the conservation and management of a heritage place. It is a tool that allows owners, managers and approval authorities to make sound decisions about heritage places. A CMP identifies the heritage values – or significance – of a place, the conservation policies to be applied to protect that significance in the face of change, and a strategy through which the policies will be put into action. Clearly this role is not applicable to a site where demolition of all heritage structures would be permitted. However, the document does serve a useful purpose as the core of a more comprehensive archival record of the refinery’s social, historic, technical and aesthetic significance. In its present form, it does not include enough material to qualify as an adequate historical archive, which could also serve as an important resource for future research. Missing from the document at this stage are the following:  A clear description (with diagrams) of the way the refinery process works.  An aerial photograph showing the location of each of the significant structures, such as the one submitted at the hearing (Figure 72 on p.65 is inadequate for this purpose).  A more comprehensive description of each of the existing and demolished structures of Primary and Contributory Significance, including its history, function and construction materials (with multiple photographs, including interiors where possible).  Copies of primary archival material such as plans, technical drawings, letters, brochures, contracts, advertisements etc. It is unfortunate that Mobil has not to date provided its heritage consultant Mr Vines with adequate primary archival material. The Panel was advised that although this material was requested, it was unable to be located, and there did not appear to be any willingness (or indeed interest) on Mobil’s part to undertake the required research. It is surprising that a company with 70 years of major technical, economic and employment activity on the Altona site appears to take so little pride in its history. The few artefacts and photographs shown to the Panel in the stairwell of the main building are only a token effort at placing the refinery in its historical context. Page 13 Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  9 November 2016 (iii)
‘Conservation by use’ The concept of ‘conservation by use’ was raised in both the Explanatory Report and in the CMP, and was discussed at the hearing. The Explanatory Report states: The main conservation policy objective for the Altona Refinery is the continued operation of the current petroleum refining process. The removal of heritage fabric is considered a necessary and appropriate part of the operation and modernisation of the Altona Refinery. Clause 22.01‐11 (Industrial Heritage Places) of the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme includes the following statement under the heading ‘Policy basis’: ‘Conservation by use’ is an important heritage principle and on this basis, there may be circumstances where it may be appropriate to permit the removal or alteration of fabric if it will facilitate the historic use of a site and ensure its future viability. This rationale underpins the Clause’s first Objective, ‘to ensure the continued viability of industrial heritage places for the uses and processes historically carried out on the site as an essential part of their significance and conservation’. It is also the basis for the first Policy, which states that applications for development should have regard to ‘the continued viability of the historic use of the site’. This approach may have its origins in the report of the Panel in C17 Part A, which, in recommending application of the HO to the subject site, acknowledged the need to ‘strike an appropriate balance between planning objectives relating to heritage and economic and social objectives relating to maintenance of a viable petroleum industry’. The CMP states that ‘the C17 amendment planning panel has determined that … the most important aspect of the site's heritage significance was in its continued operation as a petrol refinery’. This conclusion is implied rather than stated directly in the Panel’s report. Both the Explanatory Report and the CMP argue that the ‘conservation by use’ approach is consistent with Article 5 of the Burra Charter, which states: Conservation of a place should identify and take into consideration all aspects of cultural and natural significance without unwarranted emphasis on any one value at the expense of others. The argument appears to be that conservation of heritage fabric should not be given unwarranted emphasis over ‘use’. It could equally be argued that the outcome in this case gives unwarranted emphasis to ‘use’ over conservation of heritage fabric. The concept of ‘conservation by use’ has only recently emerged as a topic of discussion amongst heritage experts, and has not yet been the subject of rigorous assessment or testing. It was included in the Clause 22.01‐11 (in relation to industrial heritage sites) as part of Amendment C34. However, the concept was not the subject of any submissions and was not assessed (or mentioned) in the Panel Report. (iv)
Conclusions The Amendment purports to ‘implement a new planning policy framework’ for the site by giving primacy to its continued use, and requiring a CMP documenting its history together with a photographic record of the significant structures. Removal of the HO will allow Page 14 Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  9 November 2016 ultimate demolition of all structures on the site in line with the operational needs of the refinery. The Panel does not consider this outcome could be described as a ‘new planning policy framework’. In such circumstances, it is vital that the CMP provides a detailed history of the refinery, supported by comprehensive archival and photographic records, including descriptions of all the significant and contributory structures. The exhibited CMP does not include enough material to qualify as an adequate historical archive of the refinery’s social, historic, technical and aesthetic significance. The CMP should also be renamed as it is not consistent with the purposes of a CMP as generally understood or as defined in the Heritage Council’s guide for CMPs. Furthermore, because the CMP will have no statutory status in the planning scheme and there will be no obligation on Mobil to complete it, it is vital that it be brought to a satisfactory standard prior to the removal of statutory heritage controls. The concept of ‘conservation by use’ has not been the subject of rigorous testing or wide acceptance in the heritage community to date, and the Panel is not persuaded of its merits. The argument put forward in relation to the concept of ‘conservation by use’ in relation to the Mobil site is more an economic argument than a heritage argument. (v)
Recommendations The Panel recommends: Expand the Conservation Management Plan to include the following material:  A clear description (with diagrams) of the way the refinery process works.  An aerial photograph showing the location of each of the significant structures, such as the one submitted at the hearing (Figure 72 on p.65 is inadequate for this purpose).  A more comprehensive description of each of the existing and demolished structures of Primary and Contributory Significance, including its history, function and construction materials (with multiple photographs, including interiors where possible).  Copies of primary archival material such as plans, technical drawings, letters, brochures, contracts, advertisements etc. Change the title ‘Conservation Management Plan’ to more accurately reflect the document’s role, purpose and contents. Require the Conservation Management Plan to be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority prior to approval of the Amendment. 3.3
Assessment of alternative approaches (i)
Discussion It is appropriate to consider whether there are any viable approaches as alternatives to removal of the entire HO. Such approaches include: Page 15 Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  9 November 2016  Retain the HO and include an Incorporated Plan ‘excluding all of areas of the site from any requirement for a planning permit for buildings and works pursuant to Clause 43.01’ (as recommended by the Panel in C17 Part A).  Retain the HO and include an Incorporated Plan granting partial permit exemptions.  Retain the HO over the entire site (current situation).  Retain the HO over specific significant elements of the site. In this Panel’s view, the C17 Part B recommendation to partner the HO with an Incorporated Plan exempting the site from all permit requirements under 43.01 is self‐contradictory and, in effect, provides no heritage protection at all. Another option discussed briefly at the hearing was the use of an Incorporated Plan granting permit exemptions for changes to non‐contributory elements of the site, routine maintenance of contributory elements and works required for compliance with EPA or other regulations. Council stated that it had not considered this alternative, but acknowledged it as a mechanism used by a number of municipalities to address similar issues. However, given the complexity and interdependence of the refinery’s elements, the Panel does not consider this a workable solution for this site. The Panel notes that the current HO has to date proved to be both complex to administer and ineffective in providing heritage protection for the site, and does not consider that retention of the HO in its current form would be a satisfactory outcome for this site. Another option mentioned during the site inspection is to reduce the extent of the HO to include only specific ‘stand‐alone’ contributory elements that not operationally linked to the refinery. The most obvious examples are the original Administration building, the Switch and compressor house (1948) and the No 3 Change rooms (1953). These buildings are all listed in the CMP as being of ‘Primary Significance’:  The original Administration building dates from 1948 and reflects post‐war building material shortages. It is constructed of concrete block with concrete sills and a hipped roof, and is sited adjacent to the Miller Street frontage of the site. It is currently in ‘reasonable to fair’ condition and is used to house the medical/nursing station, a gymnasium and project offices.  The Switch and compressor house also dates from 1948 and is one of the few original control buildings left on the site. It is also built of concrete blocks with a hipped roof, and is currently used as a substation. It is a relatively small building in reasonable condition located near the Millers Road boundary, south‐east of the original Administration building.  The No 3 Change room dates from 1953. It is the last surviving building representing the era of the ‘American system’ of industrial relations introduced in the 1950s, which provided a superior level of amenities for refinery workers. The building’s unusual structural design comprises a series of concrete arched portal frames infilled with cream brick walls. The building is in reasonable‐fair condition and is located towards the southern boundary of the site. It is not currently in use. The question that remains is whether these structures could be retained and protected without undue interference in the operation and future development of the refinery. The Page 16 Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  9 November 2016 Switch and compressor house and the No 3 Change room are both located within the operating area of the refinery and do not meet this requirement. However, it is the Panel’s view that none of the arguments put forward by Council and Mobil to justify removal of the HO could be applied to the Administration building. It is prominently sited on the street frontage and well away from the refinery’s operating areas and equipment. Mobil has assessed it as being in good enough condition to be occupied and, indeed, it houses a nurses’ station/medical centre that would require a high standard of maintenance and hygiene. While there are some areas of deterioration (for example, deterioration of the external concrete sills on the Millers road frontage) there is no apparent barrier to restoration and refurbishment to meet both heritage requirements and current office requirements and standards. (ii)
Conclusion The Panel has accepted the presence of HO complicates the process of forward planning for future development of the refinery, given the number, role, interdependence and/or location of the significant structures within the plant. It has also concluded that, given the refinery’s key role in the Victorian economy and transport system, the planning system should support the continued operation and development of the refinery. Reduction of the HO to include only the 1948 Administration building (with a suitable curtilage) would be consistent with these conclusions and, given its recognition as having primary significance, would implement the heritage objectives of the SPPF and LPPF. (iii)
Recommendation The Panel recommends: Reduce the area of HO202 to include only the original 1948 Administration building and a curtilage bounded by Millers Road to the west, the entrance roadway to the north, the southern boundary of the outdoor eating area to the south, and the western walls of the two main buildings to the east. 3.4
Net community benefit The concept of ‘net community benefit’ lies at the heart of this Amendment. However, it was not put forward as an argument until the closing minutes of the hearing. In the Panel’s view, the parties’ focus on arguing that the Amendment is consistent with heritage principles was not helpful to their case or to the Panel. The Explanatory report should have been much more transparent about how the competing economic and heritage objectives were weighed to arrive at ‘net community benefit’. In the preceding sections, the Panel has concluded that the economic objectives should prevail, provided that an appropriate legacy of the site’s heritage significance remains. In this case, that Panel has recommended that the legacy should comprise continuing heritage protection for the original Administration building, and an improved CMP (under another name) to serve as a comprehensive archive of the site’s historic, social, technical and aesthetic significance. Page 17 Appendix 1 – Assessment of C107 Planning Panel Recommendations
Introduction
The Planning Panel Report for Amendment C107 to the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme was
received by Council on 9 November 2016. The Planning Panel recommended that:
“Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C107 be adopted as exhibited, subject to the
following modifications…”
The summation below provides a detailed discussion about the Panel’s recommendations
and a proposed response from Council.
The Panel’s recommendations should be broadly supported. The Panel recommendations
do not result in any policy changes and are consistent with the existing policy framework.
The amendment is considered to align with the guidelines of the Industrial Land
Management Strategy (ILMS), the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme, Hobsons Bay Heritage
Study (Amended 2016), the Council Plan and Council’s Health and Wellbeing Plan 2014-17.
Assessment of Recommendations
Based on the reasons set out in this Report, the Panel recommends that Hobsons Bay
Planning Scheme Amendment C107 be adopted as exhibited, subject to the following
modifications:
1. Reduce the area of HO202 to include only the original 1948 Administration
building and a curtilage bounded by Millers Road to the west, the entrance
roadway to the north, the southern boundary of the outdoor eating area to the
south, and the western walls of the two main buildings to the east.
Agree.
The exhibited amendment proposed to remove the entire HO202. The Planning Panel report
discusses the appropriateness of HO202 for the site and whether or not it should be
removed, retained or reduced to specific heritage elements such as buildings or plant
equipment. The Panel noted that it is important to weigh up competing objectives such as
cultural heritage and economic development before arriving at an outcome which should
achieve net community benefit.
By retaining the 1948 Administration building and curtilage in HO202, it ensures that a
statutory control is maintained on heritage fabric which is considered to be significant, whilst
allowing Exxon Mobil Corporation (Mobil) to quickly respond to the competitive economic
market through upgrades and maintenance to areas of the site which would have previously
been under statutory control, and required a planning permit to alter.
1
2. Expand the Conservation Management Plan to include the following material:
a) A clear description (with diagrams) of the way the refinery process works.
b) An aerial photograph showing the location of each of the significant
structures, such as the one submitted at the hearing (Figure 72 on p.65 is
inadequate for this purpose).
c) A more comprehensive description of each of the existing and demolished
structures of Primary and Contributory Significance, including its history,
function and construction materials (with multiple photographs, including
interiors where possible).
d) Copies of primary archival material such as plans, technical drawings, letters,
brochures, contracts, advertisements etc.
Agree.
The Panel had some concerns regarding the exhibited Conservation Management Plan
(CMP) and considered that the CMP was an inadequate response for the purposes of
recording and archiving the existing and past heritage fabrics and plant equipment of the
site.
As such, the CMP should be revised to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority as per
the above recommendation.
3. Change the title ‘Conservation Management Plan’ to more accurately
reflect the document’s role, purpose and contents.
Agree.
The Panel suggests that “there is no ‘conservation’ in the Conservation Management Plan”
given that the document was prepared to support and justify Amendment C107, the removal
of the Heritage Overlay. “The document does serve a useful purpose as the core of a more
comprehensive archival record of the refinery’s social, historic, technical and aesthetic
significance” and therefore the plan should be renamed to more accurately reflect its
purpose.
4. Require the Conservation Management Plan to be completed to the
satisfaction of the Responsible Authority prior to approval of the
Amendment.
Agree.
This recommendation is supported and should be taken into consideration with the above
recommendations regarding the CMP. Following these recommendations will achieve a
more complete and accurate version of what a CMP aims to achieve. This will improve the
heritage record of the site so that the integrity and significance of the site is not entirely lost
should the Refinery undergo further change.
2
Further correspondence with Mobil will occur to ensure that the revised version of the CMP
will meet the expectations of the Responsible Authority.
5. In drafting Explanatory Reports, Council should take care that its
approach to balancing competing objectives is transparent. Outcomes
that are inconsistent with a particular policy but result in net community
benefit should be acknowledged.
Noted.
Whilst drafting explanatory reports, a balanced approach should be taken outlining how the
amendment complies with policy and guidelines.
It should be noted that the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning accepted
the explanatory report for Amendment C107, giving the impression of sufficiency prior to
exhibition. Council will ensure that future reports analyse the subject matter with a holistic
and transparent approach.
3
Planning and Environment Act 1987
HOBSONS BAY PLANNING SCHEME
AMENDMENT C107
EXPLANATORY REPORT
Who is the planning authority?
This amendment has been prepared by the Hobsons Bay City Council, which is the planning
authority for this amendment.
The Amendment has been made at the request of Mobil Refining Australia Pty Ltd, C/Tract
Consultants.
Land affected by the Amendment
The Amendment applies to land recognised as the Mobil Refinery in Altona. This
amendment applies only to part of the land situated north of Kororoit Creek Road, bounded
by Millers Road to the west, and the industrial rail line to the north and east.
The title particulars are Lot 5 TP850733, Lot 1 TP534082 and the eastern portion of Lot 9
TP850733.
Railway Reserve
Mobil Refinery
Former Mobil
administration site
Mobil Southern
Tank Farm
Figure 1- Land affected by the amendment
Mobil Eastern
Tank Farm
What the amendment does
1. Amends the Map 9HO and the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay at Clause 43.01-1 to
delete part of HO202 from the Altona Refinery.
2. Amends Clauses 21.06 (Built Environment and Heritage) and 22.01 (Heritage Policy) to
replace the reference to the Hobsons Bay Heritage Study Amended 2014 to the Hobsons
Bay Heritage Study Amended 2016.
3. Amends Schedule 2 to clause 37.01 (Petroleum Refinery Area) of the Hobsons Bay
Planning Scheme to delete reference to clause 62.01 of the Hobsons Bay Planning
Scheme.
Strategic assessment of the Amendment
Why is the Amendment required?
Over the past ten years, Mobil has been granted permits to remove heritage fabric including
the Thermofor Catalytic Cracking Unit and two administration buildings. The removal of
further heritage fabric at the Refinery in the future is likely, as Mobil continue to modernise
the Refinery. The Refinery is an industry of State significance and a major employer in the
City of Hobsons Bay.
The Mobil Altona Refinery must regularly invest in, upgrade and replace new plant and
equipment to maintain best practice in terms of operational, technological and environmental
efficiencies, meet market demands and comply with increased health and safety regulations
to ensure the long term viability of the refinery and provide job security for personnel.
Buildings and major equipment may also need to be demolished so that available space can
be used and to contain operations within the perimeter of the site and avoid expansion
beyond the current site boundaries.
This amendment is required to change the planning policy framework relating to the Mobil
Altona Refinery. The proposed amendment makes changes to Clause 22.01-11 of the
Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme (Industrial Heritage Places Policy) and the Altona Refinery
Conservation Management Plan 2015 (Biosis Pty Ltd 2015). The main conservation policy
objective for the Altona Refinery is the continued operation of the current petroleum refining
processes. The removal of heritage fabric is considered a necessary and appropriate part of
the operation and modernisation of the Altona Refinery. Photographic archive records are to
be produced before the partial removal of the heritage overlay and heritage fabric.
The Special Use 2 Zone provides an efficient and adequate framework and level of statutory
control to ensure that the conservation objectives are considered in future works, without the
need for the heritage overlay and the trigger for permits for all buildings and works.
In addition, the buildings and works exemptions under Clause 4.0 in Schedule 2 to the
Special Use Zone incorrectly references ‘other exemptions are listed in Clause 62.01.’ This
clause relates to uses not requiring a permit rather than buildings and works not requiring a
permit. Reference to this clause has been deleted from the schedule as clause 62.01
applied irrespectively.
How does the Amendment implement the objectives of planning in Victoria?
The amendment implements the objectives of planning in Victoria, contained in Section 4 of
the Planning and Environment Act 1987, in the following way:
Objective A: the amendment provides for the fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use
and development of land as it facilitates the continued operation of this state significant
economically important site and corrects an error in the schedule.
Objective C: the amendment provides for a pleasant, efficient and safe working, living and
recreational environment for all Victorians and visitors to Victoria by allowing for advances in
safer and more efficient refining technologies.
Objective D: the amendment recognises the importance of conserving and enhancing those
buildings, areas or other places which are of scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historical
interest or otherwise of special cultural value by recording the heritage fabric on the site
whilst also allowing for an important industry to continue viable operations at this site.
Objective G: the amendment appropriately balances the present and future interests of all
Victorians, through recognising the present heritage value of the site but also ensuring the
ongoing operational functionality of the site.
How does the Amendment address any environmental, social and economic
effects?
Environmental
The amendment ensures that the Refinery will be able to continue planned works and
improvements to maintain best practice in terms of operational, technological and
environmental efficiencies.
Social
The amendment provides for a number of positive social impacts including the ongoing
provision of employment and improved documentation and records of the heritage values at
the Refinery, accessible to the community. The amendment supports continued investment
in this industry and improvements to the facility as an iconic landmark in Hobsons Bay.
Economic
The amendment makes a positive contribution to the State and local economies by
supporting the continued operation of the Refinery. The Refinery supplies a full range of
petroleum products, including 50 per cent of Victoria’s fuel needs. The Refinery currently
employs 350 people, of which approximately 40 per cent live in the local area.
Does the Amendment address relevant bushfire risk?
The site is not subject to a Wildfire Management Overlay and is not located on land
designated as a ‘Bushfire Prone Area’ under the Victorian Planning Provisions. A local policy
for bushfire risk management is not required to support this amendment.
Does the Amendment comply with the requirements of any Minister’s Direction
applicable to the amendment?
The amendment is consistent with all relevant Ministerial Directions including the Form and
Content of Planning and Ministerial Direction No.9 Metropolitan Strategy. The Metropolitan
Strategy (Plan Melbourne) identifies The Altona Refinery as being located in the Western
Industrial Precinct, a core industrial area to be protected and promoted for economic
development and employment.
The Amendment is also consistent with Ministerial Direction Section 7(5): Form and Content
of Planning Schemes
How does the Amendment support or implement the State Planning Policy
Framework and any adopted State policy?
The amendment supports and implements Clause 15.03-1 (Heritage) of the State Planning
Policy (SPPF) by ensuring the conservation of places of heritage significance.
The amendment supports and implements Clause 17.02-3 (State Significant Industrial Land)
by protecting industrial land of state significance.
How does the Amendment support or implement the Local Planning Policy
Framework, and specifically the Municipal Strategic Statement?
The amendment supports and implements Clause 21 (Strategic Vision) of the Hobsons Bay
Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) whereby the City aims to be a community that
recognises the contribution of its National and State significant and major industrial
enterprises and protects and supports their continued operations.
The amendment supports and implements Clause 21.06-2 (Heritage) of the MSS by
encouraging the conservation of elements that contribute to the significance of the Altona
Refinery, as a heritage place, in accordance with the principles and procedures
recommended by the Australian ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural
Significance (the Burra Charter). The following principles of the Burra Charter have been
uppermost in the preparation of this amendment:
Article 5: Conservation of a place should take into consideration all aspects of its cultural
significance without unwarranted emphasis on any one at the expense of others.
Article 6: The conservation policy appropriate to a place must first be determined by an
understanding of its cultural significance and its physical condition.
The amendment supports and implements Clause 21.08 (Economic Development) of the
MSS and Clause 22.02 (Industry) by its responsibility to the State and the region to ensure
the continuing viability of major industries within its borders by supporting the petroleum
refining industry and the growth and development of industry in Core Industrial Areas. The
Altona Refinery is designated as Core Industrial Area 10 in the Hobsons Bay Industrial Land
Management Strategy 2008.
The amendment implements Clause 21.08 (Economic Development) by enhancing and
protecting the petroleum refining industry in a core industrial area.
The amendment implements the Industrial Heritage Places Policy at Clause 22.01-11. This
policy identifies ‘conservation by use’ as an important heritage principle and there may be
circumstances where it may be appropriate to permit the removal or alteration of fabric if it
will facilitate the historic use of a site and ensure its future viability. The purpose of the
Industry Places Policy and objectives of the Special Use 2 Zone are consistent and aim to
support the ongoing and modernisation of the petroleum refining industry.
Does the Amendment make proper use of the Victoria Planning Provisions?
The amendment makes proper use of the Victorian Planning Provisions.
How does the Amendment address the views of any relevant agency?
The amendment is consistent with the overriding objectives of the Department of
Environment, Land, Water and Planning in relation to Plan Melbourne and economic
development. The proposal supports economic development objectives by streamlining the
planning process and ensuring the efficient operations at this important industrial site.
Does the Amendment address relevant requirements of the Transport
Integration Act 2010?
The amendment supports the ongoing operation of Victoria’s transport system. The Altona
Refinery is an important part of the transport system, supplying 50 per cent of Victoria’s fuel
needs.
Resource and administrative costs
•
What impact will the new planning provisions have on the resource and
administrative costs of the responsible authority?
The amendment changes the requirement for Mobil to obtain a permit for ‘all buildings and
works’ at the Altona Refinery to a permit to ‘construct a building and works’. This has the
potential to reduce Council’s administrative resource and costs.
Where you may inspect this Amendment
The Amendment is available for public inspection, free of charge, during office hours at the
following places:
Hobsons Bay City Council Civic Centre
Altona Library
115 Civic Parade
123 Queen Street
Altona VIC 3018
Altona VIC 3018
Altona North Library
Altona Meadows Library
180 Millers Rd
1-23 Central Avenue
Altona North VIC 3025
Altona Meadows VIC 3028
Newport Community Hub
Williamstown Library
13 Mason Street
104 Ferguson Street,
Newport VIC 3015
Williamstown VIC 3016
The Amendment can also be inspected free of charge at the Department of Environment,
Land, Water and Planning website at www.dtpli.vic.gov.au/publicinspection.
Planning and Environment Act 1987
HOBSONS BAY PLANNING SCHEME
AMENDMENT C107
INSTRUCTION SHEET
The planning authority for this amendment is the Hobsons Bay City Council.
The Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme is amended as follows:
Planning Scheme Maps
The Planning Scheme Maps are amended by a total of one attached map sheet.
Overlay Maps
1.
Amend Planning Scheme Map No.9HO in the manner shown on the one attached map marked
“Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme, Amendment C107”.
Planning Scheme Ordinance
The Planning Scheme Ordinance is amended as follows:
2.
In Local Planning Policy Framework – replace Clause 21.06 with a new Clause 21.06 in the form of
the attached document.
3.
In Local Planning Policy Framework – replace Clause 22.01 with a new Clause 22.01 in the form of
the attached document.
4.
In Zones – Clause 37.01, replace Schedule 2 with a new Schedule 2 in the form of the attached
document.
5.
In Overlays – Clause 43.01, replace Schedule 1 with a new Schedule 1 in the form of the attached
document.
End of document
HOBSONS BAY PLANNING SCHEME
21.06
BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND HERITAGE
17/07/2014
C101
Proposed C107
Overview
Hobsons Bay is a municipality where the residential areas have their own special character.
A high standard of design is encouraged in the municipality and gardens and trees in
private areas complement green streetscapes. The amenity of residential areas will be
protected from the effects of noise, air, water and land pollution.
In established residential areas, dwelling styles and designs contribute to a preferred
neighbourhood character in accordance with Neighbourhood Character policies. A new
residential character in Strategic Redevelopment Areas will consider and respect the
character of the existing surrounding area.
21.06-1
Built Environment
25/10/2012
C63
Objective 1
To ensure that new development respects and enhances the preferred neighbourhood
character of the existing residential areas of Hobsons Bay.
Strategies
 Work with development proponents to achieve outcomes that enhance the preferred
neighbourhood character.
 Ensure that a sense of openness in backyards is retained in precincts where this is an
important character element.
 Encourage high quality contemporary and innovative architectural responses and avoid
period reproduction styles, especially in Heritage Overlay areas.
 Minimise the loss of front garden space by discouraging additional vehicular crossings
and encouraging car access from rear laneways if available.
 Discourage the use of basement garages where they lead to the loss of effective
landscaping or where it has the effect of increasing the height of buildings, particularly
in coastal areas.
 Encourage energy efficient design of new dwelling construction.
 Promote innovative designs, which promote the concepts of environmentally
sustainable development through energy efficient design.
 Promote innovative designs which are functional, aesthetically pleasing and pleasant to
live in.
Objective 2
To protect and enhance the amenity of residential areas.
Strategies
 Encourage applicants to exceed minimum compliance with the requirements of Clause
54 and Clause 55 in the preparation of applications, to ensure the protection and
enhancement of the amenity of residential areas.
MUNICIPAL STRATEGIC STATEMENT - CLAUSE 21.06
PAGE 1 OF 6
HOBSONS BAY PLANNING SCHEME
 Encourage a high standard of site analysis and design response to facilitate innovation
and creativity in design and planning for medium density housing and residential areas.
 Encourage the establishment of a landscape and streetscape urban setting for new
development which reflects the local and wider landscape character.
 Minimise the dominance of car parking structures by setting such structures behind the
main building line of the dwelling.
 Protect and improve streetscapes by minimising the effects of development on street
trees and nature strips, requiring the reinstatement of footpaths, kerbs and channels with
appropriate materials and through the use of underground power and
telecommunication lines.
 Protect and improve streetscapes by minimising high solid front fences.
Objective 3
To protect the amenity of residential areas adjacent to land uses with off-site amenity
impacts and protect industry and sensitive open space from constraints and adverse impacts
caused by the encroachment of residential development.
Strategies
 Ensure that future residential development which has an interface with an existing
industry implements appropriate mitigation measures to protect the amenity of future
residents and the continued operation of the existing industry.
 Facilitate appropriate forms of residential development at the interface between
residential and other land uses. For example:
·
Residential areas adjacent to industrial land use.
·
Residential areas adjacent to the coast, creeks, wetlands and grasslands.
·
Residential areas adjacent to parks and open space reserves.
·
Other urban/non urban interface areas.
 Ensure that development adjacent to open space and along watercourses addresses, but
does not dominate, the waterway or open space.
Objective 4
To provide landscaping that enhances open space areas and surrounding amenity.
Strategies
 Encourage and undertake landscaping that:
·
Emphasises areas of high visibility such as gateways, major boulevards and creeks.
·
Uses indigenous vegetation in natural areas and introduces a wider range of species,
particularly trees in the developed areas of the municipality.
·
Integrates all existing planting in public areas.
·
Takes into account the traffic calming effects of street tree planting.
 Encourage improvements to the nature and quality of the landscaping along VicRoads
declared roads.
 Give careful consideration to the landscaping of sites as a condition of the approval of
applications for all types of land uses and development.
MUNICIPAL STRATEGIC STATEMENT - CLAUSE 21.06
PAGE 2 OF 6
HOBSONS BAY PLANNING SCHEME
 Reflect streetscape character through fencing, planting style and pavement types.
 Consider views worthy of protection or screening in the design of landscaping.
 Consider adjacent land uses and buildings to ascertain how these should influence
landscape design.
 Encourage open, well landscaped industrial precincts that enhance the appearance and
amenity of the site and public areas.
 Choose plantings appropriate to the architectural era in heritage areas.
 Encourage private landscaping that enhances the streetscapes of the municipality and
complements the landscaping of public areas.
 Encourage landscaping that provides shade but does not damage buildings and
pavements and is designed to take into account public safety.
 Promote landscape design, particularly key focal points, in proximity to areas of nature
conservation and large industrial developments.
Implementation
These objectives and strategies will be implemented by:
Policy Guidance (criteria for the exercise of discretion)
 Use local policy at Clause 22.04 to ensure site responsive and well designed residential
development that enhances and protects the strong neighbourhood character of the
residential area of Altona Meadows bounded by Central Avenue, and Queen Street to
the north, Victoria Street to the east, South Avenue Merton Street and the southern
boundary of properties abutting Spicer Boulevard/May Avenue to the south, and Henry
Drive and Skehan Boulevard to the west.
 Use local policy at Clause 22.07 – Clause 22.10 to retain and enhance identified
elements that contribute to the character of Hobsons Bay and ensure that new
development responds appropriately to the character of the precinct in which it is
located.
 Use local policy at Clause 22.11 to ensure that signs respond to the character and
amenity of sensitive areas and do not detract from the character of a locality, building
or site.
Application of zones and overlays
 Apply the Residential 1 Zone and Residential 2 Zone in established residential areas to
protect and enhance existing neighbourhood character.
 Apply the Mixed Use Zone in the Altona Beach activity centres to facilitate a range of
residential, commercial, office limited industrial and other uses which complement the
mixed-use function of the locality.
Further Strategic Work
 Consider applying a Schedule to the Residential 1 Zone to express local values.
 Review the Hobsons Bay Neighbourhood Character Study to ensure it is delivering
Council and community objectives.
Reference documents
Hobsons Bay Neighbourhood Character Study, December 2002, including Neighbourhood
Character Precinct Brochures
Hobsons Bay Landscape Design Guidelines 1999
MUNICIPAL STRATEGIC STATEMENT - CLAUSE 21.06
PAGE 3 OF 6
HOBSONS BAY PLANNING SCHEME
Hobsons Bay Advertising Signs Guidelines 1999
Hobsons Bay Industrial Land Management Strategy 2008
Health and Wellbeing Plan. Hobsons Bay Municipal Public Health Plan 2007-2011
Ageing Well Strategy 2007-2017
Disability Action Plan 2008-2012
21.06-2
Heritage
17/07/2014
C101
Proposed C107
Overview
Hobsons Bay has a rich and diverse cultural heritage which is reflected in the heritage
places and precincts identified in the Hobsons Bay Heritage Study Amended 2014.2016. It
is a community where we value our heritage and the important role it plays in helping us to
understand and interpret our past and enhance our future prosperity and way of life. There
is strong support for the protection and conservation of heritage places and precincts. All
places of heritage significance including a site, area, building, group of buildings, structure,
archaeological site, tree, garden, geological formation, fossil site, habitat or other place of
natural or cultural significance and its associated land are identified, protected and
conserved.
Objective 1
To protect and conserve places and precincts of heritage significance in Hobsons Bay.
Strategies
 Avoid the demolition of buildings, or works that contribute to the value of a heritage
place or precinct, particularly the incremental loss of contributory heritage places
within heritage precincts which will erode heritage character and adversely affect the
integrity of these places.
 Encourage the conservation of elements that contribute to the significance of a heritage
place or precinct in accordance with the principles and procedures recommended by the
Australia ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance
(the Burra Charter).
 Ensure that new buildings or works do not visually dominate or cause detriment to the
heritage significance of the broader heritage place.
 Support the replacement of non-contributory buildings and public infrastructure with
new development that responds positively to the historic context provided by
surrounding heritage places.
 Ensure that new development reflects the existing road layout and subdivision pattern
that defines and characterises the broader heritage place.
Objective 2
To ensure that new development responds positively and enhances the unique and valued
character of heritage places and precincts within Hobsons Bay.
Strategies
 Discourage the demolition of heritage places unless it can be demonstrated that, as
appropriate:
MUNICIPAL STRATEGIC STATEMENT - CLAUSE 21.06
PAGE 4 OF 6
HOBSONS BAY PLANNING SCHEME
·
The fabric to be removed is not significant.
·
The fabric to be removed is not of primary significance and its removal will not
adversely affect the significance of the place.
·
It will assist in the long term conservation of the place.
·
In the case of an industrial heritage place, it will facilitate the historic use of the
place and will not result in the loss of fabric considered to be of primary
significance.
 Discourage inappropriately designed infill development.
 Assess the contribution of new development to the heritage place within the immediate
context of the buildings or works, being the same street, across the road and on the next
couple of allotments adjacent to the subject site.
 Ensure that new buildings or works do not visually dominate or cause detriment to the
heritage values of heritage places that are situated in the locality.
 Give preference to infill buildings that are visually recessive and compatible in terms of
their scale, siting, design, form and materials with the historic character of the heritage
place or precinct in accordance with the Guidelines for Infill Development in Heritage
Areas in Hobsons Bay 2006.
 Discourage poorly designed additions and alterations to heritage places that are
unrelated in terms of design, scale, form and materials.
 Give preference to alterations or additions to existing buildings that are visually
recessive and compatible in terms of their scale, siting, design, form and materials with
the historic character of the heritage place or precinct in accordance with the Guidelines
for Alterations and Additions to Dwellings in Heritage Areas in Hobsons Bay 2006.
 Ensure that new development does not distort the historic evidence provided by the
heritage place by simply copying or reproducing historic styles or detailing.
Objective 3
To improve awareness, understanding and appreciation of the value of heritage places and
the significance of twentieth century heritage, including significant industrial places.
Strategies
 Ensure places of cultural heritage are conserved and where appropriate, are interpreted
and have appropriate settings.
 Maintain appropriate settings for heritage places.
 Where redundant heritage buildings such as former industrial buildings and hotels
cannot be retained, encourage and support their adaptive use to recognise and protect
the physical and cultural heritage significance of the building and its contribution to
development of Hobsons Bay.
Implementation
These strategies will be implemented by:
Policy Guidance (criteria for the exercise of discretion)
 Use local policy at Clause 22.01 when considering to use or develop heritage places to
protect and enhance the heritage character of Hobsons Bay and in the assessment of
applications to ensure new development responds positively to special features such as
MUNICIPAL STRATEGIC STATEMENT - CLAUSE 21.06
PAGE 5 OF 6
HOBSONS BAY PLANNING SCHEME
views, vistas, significant vegetation and landmarks and enhances the historic cultural
landscape character found in a street or precinct.
 Use local policy at Clause 22.11 in the consideration of signage applications to ensure
that signs respect the period and style of the host building and do not dominate or
obscure its architectural form or features and use relevant materials, fonts and colours.
 Require a photographic record of the building where approval has been granted for its
demolition, where appropriate.
 Assess applications for infill development in accordance with the Guidelines for Infill
Development in Heritage Areas in Hobsons Bay 2006.
 Assess applications for alterations and additions in accordance with the Guidelines for
Alterations and Additions to Dwellings in Heritage Areas in Hobsons Bay 2006.
 Use the Aboriginal cultural resource map and guidelines provided by Aboriginal
Affairs Victoria when considering an application to develop or rezone land.
Other
 Promote awareness and appreciation of the importance and value of the cultural
heritage of Hobsons Bay to improve understanding and appreciation of the value of
heritage places and the significance of twentieth century heritage, including significant
industrial places.
 Lead by example in the management of Council’s own heritage assets.
Application of zones and overlays
 Apply the Heritage Overlay to heritage places identified in the Hobsons Bay Heritage
Study Amended 20162014, by Heritage Victoria, or other relevant heritage studies.
Further Strategic Work
 Finalise and adopt the comprehensive Heritage Conservation Study for coastal areas.
 Undertake a Significant Tree Study.
 Undertake a Port of Williamstown Heritage Study in conjunction with other relevant
statutory authorities.
 Undertake a Post-war Heritage Study.
 Prepare Conservation Management Plans or management guidelines for other Councilowned or managed heritage assets as required, including:
·
Historic public infrastructure and street trees.
·
Historic sporting pavilions.
·
Dennis Reserve, Williamstown and Logan Reserve, Altona.
·
Review and update the Hobsons Bay Heritage Study Amended 20162014 as
appropriate.
Reference Documents
Hobsons Bay Heritage Study Amended 20162014
Guidelines for Alterations and Additions to Dwellings in Heritage Areas in Hobsons Bay
2006
Guidelines for Infill Development in Heritage Areas in Hobsons Bay 2006
The Burra Charter (The Australian ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance)
MUNICIPAL STRATEGIC STATEMENT - CLAUSE 21.06
PAGE 6 OF 6
HOBSONS BAY PLANNING SCHEME
22
LOCAL PLANNING POLICIES
17/07/2014
C101
Proposed C107
22.01
17/07/2014
C101
Proposed C107
Heritage Policy
This Local Planning Policy affects areas included in the Heritage Overlay and comprises
the following:
 22.01-1: General Heritage Policy
 22.01-2: Government Survey Heritage Precinct Policy
 22.01-3: Private Survey Heritage Precinct Policy
 22.01-4: Hannan’s Farm (Ramsgate Estate) and Williamstown Beach Heritage
Precincts Policy
 22.01-5: Ferguson Street Civic and Commercial Heritage Precinct Policy
 22.01-6: Nelson Place Heritage Precinct Policy
 22.01-7: Cox’s Garden Heritage Precinct Policy
 22.01-8: Housing Commission of Victoria Estates Heritage Precincts Policy
 22.01-9: Newport and Spotswood Residential Heritage Precincts Policy
 22.01-10: Newport Civic and Commercial Heritage Precinct Policy
 22.01-11: Industrial Heritage Places Policy
Using this Policy
This policy comprises an overall heritage policy, which applies to all heritage precincts and
places within the City of Hobsons Bay. There are also additional sub-policies for specific
heritage precincts and places within the municipality and a sub-policy on Industrial
Heritage Places. Each individual sub-policy has its own policy basis, objectives, and
policy statements that should be considered in conjunction with the overall policy.
The Hobsons Bay Heritage Study Amended 20162014 informs this policy and should be
referred to in identifying the significance of the heritage precincts.
A ‘heritage precinct’ is a group of heritage places identified by the Hobsons Bay Heritage
Study Amended 20142016.
The term ‘heritage place’ refers to:
 A place that is individually cited in the Hobsons Bay Heritage Study Amended
20162014.
 A place that is contributory to the significance of a heritage precinct.
Application requirements
Where a permit is required for development in a Heritage Overlay, an application must be
accompanied by information that adequately responds to the relevant sections of the
Hobsons Bay Heritage Study Amended 20162014, the Guidelines for Infill Development in
Heritage Areas in Hobsons Bay 2006 and the Guidelines for Alterations and Additions to
Dwellings in Heritage Areas in Hobsons Bay 2006.
22.01-1
General Heritage Policy
17/07/2014
C101
Proposed C107
This policy applies to all land included within a Heritage Overlay.
LOCAL P LANNING POLICIES – CLAUSE 22.01
PAGE 1 OF 21
HOBSONS BAY PLANNING SCHEME
Policy basis
The Hobsons Bay Municipal Strategic Statement identifies the need for a local policy to
ensure that the cultural heritage of Hobsons Bay is conserved and enhanced.
The communities of Hobsons Bay have played an important role in the historic
development of Victoria and the unique history of Hobsons Bay is illustrated by a wide
variety of heritage places that include buildings, neighbourhood precincts, trees and
landscapes, and urban forms. The heritage places of Hobsons Bay reflect the key themes
that have shaped the development of the city since the establishment of Williamstown in
the 1840s as the first port of Melbourne, through the development of Newport and
Spotswood during the Federation and Interwar periods associated with the growth of
railways and related industries, to the post-war industrial and residential expansion that
transformed Altona and Laverton.
These heritage places are important for the reasons described in the Hobsons Bay Heritage
Study Amended 20162014, as well as the broader social, cultural and economic benefits
they bring by:
 Providing historic continuity, which enables the complex layering of the history of
Hobsons Bay to be understood and interpreted.
 Enhancing the character and amenity of the city by contributing to the unique identity
of each neighbourhood.
 The heritage of Hobsons Bay is highly valued by the community and there is strong
support for controls and policy to protect and conserve places of identified heritage
significance.
 This policy implements the recommendations of the Hobsons Bay Heritage Study
Amended 20162014.
Objectives
To conserve characteristics that contribute to the individual identity of heritage places and
precincts within Hobsons Bay and ensure that their cultural significance is not diminished
by:
 The loss of any fabric which contributes to the significance of the heritage place or
precinct;
 Inappropriate new development;
To conserve heritage places in accordance with the principles and procedures
recommended by the Australia ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of
Cultural Significance (Burra Charter).
To ensure new development is of a high quality design that creatively interprets and
responds positively to the historic context provided by the heritage place or precinct.
To support the replacement of non-contributory buildings with new development that
responds positively to the historic context provided by surrounding heritage places.
To ensure new development becomes a valued addition, which complements the aesthetic
qualities of a heritage place or precinct.
To ensure new development does not distort historic evidence of heritage places by
copying or reproducing historic styles or detailing.
To encourage the viable use of buildings as part of their conservation.
To ensure a consistent approach to the conservation of heritage places.
To conserve heritage places and precincts based on the statement of significance for the
place or precinct.
LOCAL P LANNING POLICIES – CLAUSE 22.01
PAGE 2 OF 21
HOBSONS BAY PLANNING SCHEME
To improve community awareness of the importance and value of heritage places and
precincts.
To ensure new development responds positively to special features such as views, vistas,
significant vegetation and landmarks.
To ensure landscaping enhances the historic cultural landscape character found in a street
or precinct.
To ensure new development does not visually dominate a heritage place or precinct.
Policy
Exercising discretion
It is policy to conserve heritage places and precincts by:
 Ensuring the maintenance and preservation of heritage places;
 Ensuring the restoration or reconstruction of fabric where opportunities arise.
 Discouraging the demolition of heritage places unless the demolition is only part of the
heritage place and it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Responsible
Authority that, as appropriate:
 Ensuring the fabric to be removed is not significant;
 Ensure the fabric to be removed will not adversely affect the significance of the
heritage place;
 Ensuring development will assist in the long term conservation of the heritage place;
 In the case of an industrial heritage place, ensuring development will facilitate the
historic use of the heritage place and will not result in the loss of fabric of primary
significance;
 Discouraging the demolition of heritage places unless it can be demonstrated to the
satisfaction of the Responsible Authority that the structural integrity of the heritage
place has been lost;
 Generally not accepting the poor condition or low integrity of a heritage place as
justification for its demolition, particularly if in the opinion of the Responsible
Authority the condition of the heritage place has deliberately been allowed to
deteriorate;
 Maintaining and enhancing the setting of heritage places and precincts by the removal
of non-significant fabric and by ensuring that infill buildings or additions to existing
buildings are visually recessive. This includes views and vistas to a heritage place from
public places;
 Encourage the removal of alterations and additions except where they contribute to the
significance of the heritage place;
 Ensure new infill buildings, alterations and additions to existing buildings are visually
recessive and compatible in scale, siting, design, form and materials with the character
of the heritage place or precinct;
 Ensure new infill buildings have regard to the Guidelines for Infill Development in
Heritage Areas in Hobsons Bay 2006;
 Ensure alterations and additions to contributory dwellings have regard to the Guidelines
for Alterations and Additions to Dwellings in Heritage Areas in Hobsons Bay 2006;
 Ensure alterations and additions to non-contributory dwellings have regard to the
Guidelines for Alterations and Additions to Dwellings in Heritage Areas in Hobsons
Bay 2006;
LOCAL P LANNING POLICIES – CLAUSE 22.01
PAGE 3 OF 21
HOBSONS BAY PLANNING SCHEME
 Conserve early public realm infrastructure such as basalt gutters, unmade roadside
verges, bluestone and concrete kerbs, channels, footpaths and laneways are conserved
and reconstructed as appropriate;
 Discourage vehicle crossovers and off-street parking provision at the front of heritage
places, unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority
that these features were historically found in the street where the property is located and
that no suitable alternative exists;
 Significant street trees should not be removed unless they die or in the opinion of the
Responsible Authority become a safety risk. If a significant street tree is removed, it
should be replaced with a semi-advanced species to the satisfaction of the Responsible
Authority;
 Original front fences and related features such as lynch gates and pergolas should be
retained;
 If a front fence is not significant, low timber picket fencing or other styles that are
historically appropriate for the stylistic period of the dwelling should be provided,
unless historic evidence to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority can be
provided for an alternative design;
 Ensure subdivision is compatible with the original subdivision layout and character of
the heritage place or precinct;
 Ensure advertising signs have regard to the Hobsons Bay Advertising Sign Guidelines
1999 and are traditional in form and location;
 Encourage historical research of heritage places and precincts and promote their
physical link with history.
Decision Guidelines
It is policy that before deciding on an application the Responsible Authority must consider,
as appropriate:
 The significance of the heritage place or precinct as described in the Hobsons Bay
Heritage Study Amended 20162014 and whether the proposed buildings or works will
adversely affect the cultural significance of the heritage place or precinct;
 Whether the application has responded appropriately to the relevant design guidelines
in the Guidelines for Infill Development in Heritage Areas in Hobsons Bay 2006 or the
Guidelines for Alterations and Additions to Dwellings in Heritage Areas in Hobsons
Bay 2006.
Whether the proposed buildings or works will assist in the conservation of the place by:
 Maintaining, protecting, restoring, repairing or stabilising significant fabric;
 Supporting the continued original use of the building by enabling it to be upgraded to
meet present day requirements and standards;
 Implementing works in accordance with a Conservation Management Plan that has
been prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;
 Allowing an alternative use (where this is permitted by the Planning Scheme) when the
original use of the building is no longer viable, or in accordance with a Conservation
Management Plan;
 Whether the proposed buildings or works will have an adverse effect on a significant
tree identified by the Hobsons Bay Heritage Study Amended 20162014, or any tree that
contributes to the setting of a heritage place or precinct.
LOCAL P LANNING POLICIES – CLAUSE 22.01
PAGE 4 OF 21
HOBSONS BAY PLANNING SCHEME
Policy references
 Hobsons Bay Heritage Study Amended 20162014.
 Guidelines for Alterations and Additions to Dwellings in Heritage Areas in Hobsons
Bay 2006
 Guidelines for Infill Development in Heritage Areas in Hobsons Bay 2006
 Australia ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance
(The Burra Charter).
 Hobsons Bay Advertising Sign Guidelines 1999 (or any subsequent version).
22.01-2
17/07/2014
C101
Proposed C107
Government Survey Heritage Precinct Policy
This policy applies to all land and heritage places within the Government Survey Heritage
Precinct, (HO8), the Cecil Street Heritage Precinct, (HO1), Electra Street Heritage Precinct
(HO4), Esplanade Residential Heritage Precinct (HO6), Hanmer Street Heritage Precinct
(HO12), Pasco Street Heritage Precinct (HO24), part of the Railway Crescent Heritage
Precinct east of Giffard Street (HO28), Verdon Street Heritage Precinct (HO32), and places
individually listed in the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay in the area generally bounded by
Ferguson Street, Nelson Place, Kanowna Street, Morris Street, Esplanade, Giffard Street,
and Railway Place in Williamstown.
Policy basis
The Government Survey Heritage Precinct comprises the parts of “Williams Town”
originally surveyed by Robert Hoddle and later extended by the Victorian Colonial
Government between 1837 and 1855. Historically, the precinct demonstrates the most
important and prosperous phases in the development of Williamstown, from the midnineteenth to early twentieth centuries associated with the development of the port and later
influenced by the development of railways and related industries. The early settlement of
Williamstown and its importance as a port and defence facility, also contributes to a
broader understanding of the history of Victoria.
This policy implements the recommendations of the Hobsons Bay Heritage Study Amended
20162014 relating to this precinct.
Objectives
To retain the distinctive cultural heritage significance of this precinct which is derived
from:
 The strong associations with the maritime and railway industries that were key
influences in the early historic development of Williamstown;
 The strong associations with the formative civic, public and commercial development
that occurred in Williamstown during the nineteenth century;
 The setting and visual prominence of the civic, public and commercial buildings on key
sites throughout the precinct, and in particular the grouping of related basalt public
buildings in Cecil Street and public buildings in Electra Street;
 The strong and distinctive urban form created by the regular grid subdivisions,
separated by areas of open space, which exemplifies nineteenth century town planning;
 The pre-1860 buildings, which demonstrate the very early origins of this precinct and
comprise one of the most significant collections of buildings from this period within
Victoria;
 The Williamstown railway line corridor;
LOCAL P LANNING POLICIES – CLAUSE 22.01
PAGE 5 OF 21
HOBSONS BAY PLANNING SCHEME
 The generally uniform scale (predominantly single storey), siting (generally detached,
parallel to frontage), construction (predominantly horizontal weatherboard with pitched
hipped or gable roof) and subdivision pattern (single dwellings on rectangular regular
shaped allotments) of residential buildings, which provide a unifying element
throughout the precinct. Typically, car parking is not provided on site;
 Regular shaped lots with frontages predominantly between 6-9 metres, which create a
distinctive pattern of development;
 The rare surviving examples of early housing construction such as pre-fabricated timber
dwellings, basalt houses, and attached row houses with undivided roofs;
 The unique nineteenth century road layout in key streets, and other historic public
infrastructure;
 Significant trees on public and private land, which contribute to the cultural landscape
character.
Policy
It is policy to encourage infill development that has:
 Respect for the single storey scale of the precinct generally with detached siting;
 Simple single or double fronted building forms;
 Horizontal weatherboard cladding for walls visible from the street. Alternatively,
smooth render brick or masonry or a combination of these may be provided;
 Simple hipped corrugated iron or slate roof forms;
 Windows visible from the street that are rectangular, timber-framed and vertically
orientated if single, or in a horizontal bank if grouped;
 Eaves and verandahs in street elevations.
It is policy that alterations and additions to existing dwellings should:
 Be single storey scale when viewed from a street (not including a right-of-way);
 Be sited to the rear of the existing building;
 Be setback from side boundaries to reflect the existing pattern of development;
 Be the same, or a contemporary interpretation of the wall cladding of the existing
dwelling for walls visible from the street;
 Be compatible with the heritage place’s roof form and material as visible from the
street;
 Be the same as the significant fabric of the facade or profile of the main roofline as
viewed from the street;
 Retain contributory features such as chimneys and bluestone foundations;
 Avoid windows in upper floor elevations facing the street;
 Be ground floor windows visible from the street that are rectangular, timber-framed and
vertically orientated if single, or in a horizontal bank, if grouped.
22.01-3
17/07/2014
C101
Proposed C107
Private Survey Heritage Precinct Policy
This policy applies to all land and heritage places within the Private Survey Heritage
Precinct (HO27), the Power Street Heritage Precinct (HO26), Lenore Crescent Heritage
Precinct (HO18), Macquarie Street Heritage Precinct (HO19), James Street Heritage
Precinct (HO17), The Strand Heritage Precinct (HO31), Dover Road and John Street
Heritage Precinct (HO3), and places individually listed in the Schedule to the Heritage
LOCAL P LANNING POLICIES – CLAUSE 22.01
PAGE 6 OF 21
HOBSONS BAY PLANNING SCHEME
Overlay in the area generally bounded by North Road, The Strand, Ferguson Street, Power
Street, and Melbourne Road in Williamston and Newport.
Policy basis
Historically, the Private Survey Heritage Precinct is significant for its ability to illustrate
the two main development phases of the city during the Victorian (port rise and decline)
and Edwardian to Interwar periods (railway and manufacturing industry). This has created
a distinctive layering of history, which illustrates how this part of Williamstown and
Newport developed quite differently to the Government Survey Heritage Precinct to the
south of Ferguson Street. Compared to other precincts in Hobsons Bay, it is more
heterogeneous in character and is aesthetically significant for the groups of predominantly
late nineteenth and early twentieth century houses that range from predominantly
Victorian-era precincts such as James and Macquarie Streets, to almost exclusively
Interwar enclaves such as Federal Street, Chandler Street and Lenore Crescent. Housing in
other streets, although stylistically different, share common elements of scale, siting,
materials and roof forms, which create cohesive groups. Some streets retain early street
detailing such as basalt kerb and channel and mature street trees, which enhance and
reinforce the historic character. Another notable element is the Victorian and Interwar
commercial buildings and hotels, which are typically located on prominent corner sites and
sited on the frontage throughout the precinct.
This policy implements the recommendations of the Hobsons Bay Heritage Study Amended
20162014 relating to this precinct.
Objectives
To retain the distinctive cultural heritage significance of this precinct which is derived
from:
 The extent of speculative subdivision within Williamstown during the nineteenth
century, which created a less regular street pattern compared to other parts of
Williamstown and Newport;
 The ability to illustrate, often within the same street, two key periods in the
development of Williamstown from maritime to railway and other industries;
 The commercial development scattered throughout the precinct that illustrates how selfcontained communities developed in the era before the use of cars became widespread;
 The pre-1860 buildings, which demonstrate the early origins of parts of this precinct
closer to Ferguson Street. The contrast between streets that are relatively homogeneous
in character with streets that are more heterogeneous in character;
 The architectural diversity of the residential buildings comprising villas and bungalows
from the Victorian to Interwar periods of generally uniform scale (predominantly single
storey), siting (detached), construction (predominantly horizontal weatherboard with
pitched hip or gable roof), and a regular subdivision pattern (single dwellings on regular
allotments), which provide a unifying element throughout the precinct. Typically, car
parking was not provided on site until later in the Interwar period;
 Regular shaped lots with wide frontages predominantly between 10-15 metres, which
create a distinctive pattern of development;
 Landmark hotels and commercial buildings which are typically sited on prominent
street corners.
Policy
It is policy to encourage infill development that has:
LOCAL P LANNING POLICIES – CLAUSE 22.01
PAGE 7 OF 21
HOBSONS BAY PLANNING SCHEME
 Respect for the single storey scale of the precinct with double storey elements setback
to minimise visibility from the street;
 Detached siting parallel to the frontage, unless angled siting is a characteristic of the
street or group of houses where a property is located;
 Simple single or double fronted building forms with symmetrical plans in streets or
groups of houses that have predominantly Victorian character, or asymmetrically
designed plans in streets or groups of houses with predominantly Edwardian or Interwar
character;
 Horizontal timber weatherboard cladding for walls visible from the street.
Alternatively, smooth render brick or masonry or a combination of these may be
provided;
 Hipped corrugated iron or slate roof forms, except in streets or groups of houses, which
have predominantly Edwardian or Interwar character, where terracotta tiles may be
provided;
 Windows visible from the street that are rectangular, timber-framed and vertically
orientated if single, or in a horizontal bank if grouped;
 Eaves and verandahs in street elevations.
It is policy that alterations and additions to existing dwellings should:
 Be single storey scale when viewed from the street, (not including a right-of-way);
 Be sited to the rear of the existing building;
 Include side setbacks that reflect the existing street pattern;
 Be the same, or a contemporary interpretation of the wall cladding of the existing
dwelling for walls visible from the street;
 Be compatible with the roof form and material of the heritage place when visible from
the street;
 Not significantly alter the fabric of the facade or profile of the main roofline as viewed
from the street;
 Retain contributory features such as chimneys and bluestone foundations;
 Avoid windows in upper floor elevations facing the street;
 Promote ground floor windows visible from the street that are rectangular, timberframed and vertically orientated if single, or in a horizontal bank if grouped.
22.01-4
17/07/2014
C101
Proposed C107
Hannan’s Farm (Ramsgate Estate) And Williamstown Beach Heritage
Precincts Policy
This policy applies to all land and heritage places within Hannan’s Farm Heritage Precinct
(HO13), Victoria Street Heritage Precinct (HO33), Williamstown Beach Heritage Precinct
(HO34), part of Railway Crescent Heritage Precinct west of Giffard Street (HO28),
including places individually listed in the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay with frontage
to Castle Street, Collins Street, Esplanade (part), Forster Street, Garden Street, Giffard
Street (part), Gellibrand Street, Hannan Street, Knight Street, Langford Street, Laverton
Street, Osborne Street (part), Railway Crescent (part), Stewart Street, Vera Street, Victoria
Street and Winifred Street in Williamstown.
Policy basis
This precinct includes those parts of South Williamstown generally to the west of the
Giffard Street that were subdivided during the late nineteenth century. It includes Victoria
and Hannan Streets which were part of the Ramsgate Estate created in the late 1880’s by
LOCAL P LANNING POLICIES – CLAUSE 22.01
PAGE 8 OF 21
HOBSONS BAY PLANNING SCHEME
the subdivision of Hannan’s Farm by two well-known Williamstown figures, AT Clark and
John Morgan. This precinct is significant as an intact late nineteenth and early twentieth
century residential area comprising predominantly Victorian and Edwardian era houses
with common or similar characteristics of design, siting and scale that create cohesive and
relatively homogeneous streetscapes. Many are externally intact and others, although
altered, still retain their distinctive form and siting and hence contribute to the precinct.
Many also have mature gardens that complement the mature street trees in Victoria and
Osborne Streets. Victoria Street is particularly notable for its many fine examples of
Edwardian and interwar villas and bungalows.
This policy implements the recommendations of the Hobsons Bay Heritage Study Amended
20162014 relating to this precinct.
Objectives
To retain the distinctive cultural heritage significance of this precinct which is derived
from:
 The strong associations with individuals who were prominent in civic and social life in
Williamstown in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century;
 The Victorian-era dwellings, which illustrate the late nineteenth century origins of this
area, and include some of the best examples of Italianate architecture in Williamstown;
 The generally uniform scale (predominantly single storey), siting (detached),
construction (predominantly horizontal weatherboard with pitched hipped or gable roof)
and subdivision pattern (single dwellings on regular shaped allotments) of dwellings,
which create cohesive streetscapes. Typically, there is no provision for on-site car
parking;
 Regular shaped lots with wide frontages of predominantly 10-15 metres, which create a
distinctive street pattern;
 The fine collection of Edwardian and interwar ‘picturesque’ villas and bungalows in
Victoria Street;
 Mature trees on public and private land that provides an appropriate cultural landscape,
which is related to the main period of development;
 The Rifle Club Hotel and the Williamstown Croquet Club pavilion, which are notable
landmarks at the northern entrance to Victoria Street;
 The original street layout in Osborne Street, which includes unmade road verges and
street trees;
 Views along Victoria and Hannan Streets to the Bay;
 The Williamstown Botanic Gardens.
Policy
It is policy to encourage infill development that has:
 Respect for the single storey scale of the precinct with detached siting parallel to the
frontage;
 Simple single or double fronted building forms, except in Victoria Street where more
complex asymmetrically designed forms may be appropriate;
 Horizontal timber weatherboard cladding for walls visible from the street.
Alternatively, smooth render brick or masonry or a combination of these may be
provided;
 Hipped corrugated iron or slate roof forms, except in Victoria Street where more
complex hipped and gable roof forms in terracotta tiles may be provided;
LOCAL P LANNING POLICIES – CLAUSE 22.01
PAGE 9 OF 21
HOBSONS BAY PLANNING SCHEME
 Rectangular, timber-framed and vertically orientated window style if single, or in a
horizontal bank if grouped windows are visible from the street;
 Eaves and verandahs or porches in street elevations.
It is policy that alterations and additions to existing dwellings should:
 Be single storey in scale when viewed from a street, not including a right-of-way;
 Be sited to the rear of the existing dwelling;
 Promote side setbacks, which reflect the rhythm of the existing spacing between
dwellings;
 Be the same, or a contemporary interpretation of the wall cladding of the existing
dwelling for walls visible from the street;
 Be compatible with the roof form and material of the heritage place when visible from
the street;
 Avoid alterations to significant fabric of the facade or profile of the main roofline as
viewed from the street;
 Retain contributory features such as chimneys and bluestone foundations;
 Avoid windows in upper floor elevations facing the street;
 Promote ground floor windows visible from the street that are rectangular, timberframed and vertically orientated if single, or in a horizontal bank if grouped.
22.01-5
17/07/2014
C101
Proposed C107
Ferguson Street Civic and Commercial Heritage Precinct Policy
This policy applies to all land and heritage places within the Ferguson Street Civic and
Commercial precinct (HO7) including places individually listed in the Schedule to the
Heritage Overlay in Ferguson Street in Williamstown.
Policy basis
Historically, Ferguson Street formed the northern boundary of Williamstown as originally
surveyed by Hoddle in 1837 and is significant for its ability to illustrate key phases in its
development as a city from the mid-nineteenth to the mid-twentieth century.
This policy implements the recommendations of the Hobsons Bay Heritage Study Amended
20162014 relating to this precinct.
Objectives
To conserve and enhance the historic character and amenity of Ferguson Street that is an
important part of its identity and enhances its appeal as a retail centre.
To retain the distinctive cultural heritage significance of this precinct, which distinguishes
it from other precincts in Hobsons Bay and is derived from:
 The commercial buildings that demonstrate the later development of Ferguson Street,
which replaced Nelson Place as the main commercial and civic centre of Williamstown
between the late nineteenth and mid-twentieth century;
 The setting and visual prominence of landmark civic and commercial buildings on key
sites throughout the precinct such as the former Williamstown Town Hall and
Municipal Offices and the former Punshon’s Federal Stores;
 The strong associations with the maritime industries and professions that were key
influences in the early historic development of Williamstown;
LOCAL P LANNING POLICIES – CLAUSE 22.01
PAGE 10 OF 21
HOBSONS BAY PLANNING SCHEME
 The predominant two storey scale, siting (attached and constructed to the property line),
construction (face or rendered brick), roofs concealed behind parapets, and subdivision
pattern (narrow frontages) of surviving commercial heritage places, which provide a
consistent element throughout the precinct;
 The rare surviving original shopfronts, awnings and other early detailing on some
buildings.
Policy
It is policy to encourage infill development that has:
 Respect for the double storey scale of the precinct with vertical proportions.
Development above two storeys may be appropriate if the upper level is setback to
minimise visibility from Ferguson Street;
 Attached siting with no front setback;
 Face pressed brick, smooth rendered brick or masonry style for walls that are visible
from Ferguson Street or from streets and lanes that intersect Ferguson Street;
 Hipped roof form concealed behind parapets;
 Timber framed rectangular windows in upper elevations with vertical proportions if
single or a horizontal bank if grouped. Large unbroken expanses of glass on upper
facades are generally not supported;
It is policy that alterations and additions to existing dwellings should:
 Be single storey scale or not exceeding the height of the existing building on the site;
 Be sited to the rear of the existing building;
 Be the same, or a contemporary interpretation of the wall cladding of the existing
building on the site, for walls visible from the street;
 Be compatible with the roof form and material visible of the heritage place from the
street;
 Avoid alterations to significant fabric of the principal façade, or the profile of the main
roofline as viewed from the street;
 Retain contributory features such as chimneys and bluestone foundations;
 Avoid windows in upper floor elevations facing the street;
 Promote ground floor windows that are rectangular, timber-framed and vertically
orientated if single, or in a horizontal bank if grouped when visible from the street.
It is policy that:
 Early examples of painted or other types of advertising signage are conserved.
22.01-6
17/07/2014
C101
Proposed C107
Nelson Place Heritage Precinct Policy
This policy applies to all land and heritage places within the Nelson Place Heritage
Precinct (HO21) including places individually listed in the Schedule to the Heritage
Overlay in Nelson Place (part) and Cole Street (part) and 1 Parker Street in Williamstown.
Policy basis
The Nelson Place Heritage Precinct is historically significant as it was the major
commercial centre of Williamstown in the nineteenth century, and is the area that perhaps
best demonstrates the strong relationship between the development of the city and the
development of the port. It includes some of the earliest commercial development in
LOCAL P LANNING POLICIES – CLAUSE 22.01
PAGE 11 OF 21
HOBSONS BAY PLANNING SCHEME
Williamstown and is important for its strong and long-standing associations with maritime
activities that defines the essential character of Williamstown and distinguishes it within
the metropolitan area. It also illustrates how self-sufficient close-knit communities were
established during the nineteenth century.
The Nelson Place Heritage Precinct is also significant as a remarkably intact and cohesive
nineteenth century commercial precinct, which is distinguished by its intact and fine
examples of nineteenth century commercial architecture from the mid-to-late Victorian
period, which illustrate the prosperity of the port at that time. It is also notable for its direct
visual relationship with the port and the related cultural landscape provided by the
Commonwealth Reserve.
This policy implements the recommendations of the Hobsons Bay Heritage Study Amended
20162014 relating to this precinct.
Objectives
To conserve and enhance the historic character and amenity of Nelson Place that is an
integral part of its identity and enhances its appeal as a cultural tourism precinct in a
metropolitan context.
To retain the cultural heritage significance of this precinct which is derived from:
 The pre-1860 buildings, which comprise one of the most significant collections of
commercial buildings from this period within Victoria;
 The strong associations with the maritime industry and development of the Port of
Williamstown during the nineteenth century;
 The almost continuous and intact group of two-storey Victorian buildings which are
harmonious in scale and siting and display a variety of architectural detail typical of late
nineteenth century commercial development;
 The presence of a number of substantial nineteenth century commercial buildings,
especially banks, designed by noted Melbourne architects;
 The unique visual and landscape relationship between the two-storey commercial
development in Nelson Place, Commonwealth Reserve and Hobsons Bay, which is not
found elsewhere in Melbourne;
 The unusual geometry of the intersection between Parker and Cole Streets with Nelson
Place, which is emphasised by the placement of the former Williamstown Post Office
on the apex of Parker and Cole Streets, and framed by the banks on either corner;
 Sections of the roadway that retain basic early century layouts which highlight the
period of the precinct, including asphalt and some stone footpaths and basalt kerb and
channel with verandah fixings evident in the kerb;
 Rare wrought-iron balustrades to open drain inlets and stone paved carriageways at the
rear of some sites;
 Regular shaped lots with frontages typically between 7-11 metres, which create a
distinctive pattern of development;
 The mature planting, rotunda, and trees in the Commonwealth Reserve, and the mature
street trees in Nelson Place that provide a related cultural landscape setting for the
architecture;
Policy
It is policy to encourage infill development that has:
 Respect for the double storey scale of the precinct.
 Attached siting with no front setbacks.
LOCAL P LANNING POLICIES – CLAUSE 22.01
PAGE 12 OF 21
HOBSONS BAY PLANNING SCHEME
 Face or rendered brick for walls visible from Nelson Place, Cole Street, Parker Street or
Thompson Street.
 Hipped roof forms concealed behind parapets.
 Upper floor elevations in windows visible from the street should be rectangular with
vertical proportions if single. Large unbroken expanses of glass on upper facades are
not permitted.
It is policy that alterations and additions to existing dwellings should:
 Avoid alterations to significant fabric of the facade or profile of the main roofline as
viewed from the street.
 Promote the use external colours and materials that compatible with the original colours
and materials of the heritage place.
 Promote roof forms visible from the street that relate to that of the heritage place.
 Promote windows and other building openings visible from the street that relate to
those of the heritage place.
It is policy that:
 Early examples of painted or other types of advertising signage are conserved.
 Reconstruction of verandahs should be in accordance with the Nelson Place Verandahs
Guidelines, Helen Lardner Conservation & Design, 2002.
22.01-7
17/07/2014
C101
Proposed C107
Cox’s Garden Heritage Precinct Policy
This policy applies to all land and heritage places within the Cox’s Garden Heritage
Precinct (HO2) including places individually listed in the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay
in Cox’s Garden.
Policy basis
The Cox’s Garden Heritage Precinct was one of the first private subdivisions created just
north of the original government subdivision of Williamstown and illustrates the optimistic
early speculative subdivision that occurred in anticipation of the future development of the
port and the township. It contains at least two rare examples of small pre-1860 timber
houses, which are amongst the oldest group of houses in Williamstown and the oldest
group of timber houses in the metropolitan area. It is also important for the historical
associations of early residents of Cox's Garden with the early maritime pursuits that
distinguish Williamstown in the metropolitan area.
The Cox’s Garden Heritage Precinct is now a rare surviving example of the small private
subdivisions that were created in the area to the north of Ferguson Street with their
distinctive “cheek by jowl” character of modest, cheaply constructed and often
prefabricated housing erected for working class people during the earliest period of
settlement.
The historic character of this precinct, so different to the spacious streets in the
Government Survey to the south of Ferguson Street, may still be understood and
interpreted despite the loss of all but one house on the west side and the development of a
public car park. Few other streets, either in Williamstown or the metropolitan area, have
retained this distinctive early character.
This policy implements the recommendations of the Hobsons Bay Heritage Study Amended
20162014 relating to this precinct.
LOCAL P LANNING POLICIES – CLAUSE 22.01
PAGE 13 OF 21
HOBSONS BAY PLANNING SCHEME
Objectives
To support the reconstruction of buildings on the west-side of the street.
To retain the distinctive cultural heritage significance of this precinct which is derived
from:
 The rare pre-1860 timber cottages, which illustrate the early development of Cox’s
Garden and are part of one of the most significant collections of buildings from this
period within any municipality in Victoria;
 The strong association with maritime industries that is an integral part of the character
of Williamstown;
 The uniform single storey scale, siting (detached, parallel and close to the frontage),
construction (predominantly horizontal weatherboard with simple hip roof) and
subdivision pattern (single dwellings on narrow rectangular allotments) of the heritage
places. Typically, there is no provision for car parking on site;
 Regular shaped lots with average frontages of 10 metres, which creates a distinctive
pattern of development.
Policy
It is policy to encourage infill development that has:
 Respect for the single storey scale of the precinct with detached siting parallel to the
frontage;
 Minimal frontage setbacks and small side setbacks;
 Horizontal weatherboards of walls visible from Cox’s Garden;
 Simple hipped roof forms of corrugated iron;
 Symmetrical facade composition with centrally located doorways flanked by
rectangular double hung timber-framed windows that are vertically orientated;
 Narrow eaves and verandahs in street elevation.
It is policy that alterations and additions to existing dwellings should:
 Be single storey in scale when viewed from a street;
 Be sited to the rear of the existing building;
 Promote side setbacks, which reflect the rhythm of the existing spacing between
dwellings;
 Promote the conservation of original or significant fabric, and missing fabric
reconstructed where opportunities arise;
 Promote horizontal weatherboard cladding for walls visible from Cox’s Garden;
 Promote roof forms and material visible from the street that is compatible with that of
the heritage place;
 Avoid alterations to significant fabric of the facade or profile of the main roofline as
viewed from the street;
 Avoid windows in upper floor elevations facing the street;
 Promote ground floor windows visible from the street that are rectangular, timberframed and vertically orientated if single, or in a horizontal bank, if grouped.
LOCAL P LANNING POLICIES – CLAUSE 22.01
PAGE 14 OF 21
HOBSONS BAY PLANNING SCHEME
It is policy to:
 Encourage construction of the original street detailing including basalt kerb and channel
and asphalt footpaths;
 Discourage vehicle crossovers at the frontage of sites;
 Encourage low timber picket fencing or other styles that are historically appropriate for
the stylistic period of the dwelling, unless historic evidence to the satisfaction of the
Responsible Authority can be given for an alternative design.
22.01-8
17/07/2014
C101
Proposed C107
Housing Commission of Victoria Estates Heritage Precincts Policy
This policy applies to all land and heritage places within Housing Commission of Victoria
- Champion Road Estate Heritage Precinct (HO15) and Housing Commission of Victoria West Newport Estate Heritage Precinct (HO16) including places individually listed in the
Schedule to the Heritage Overlay.
Policy basis
The Housing Commission of Victoria (HCV) developed the Champion Road and West
Newport estates during the mid to late 1940s. These estates represented a new approach to
housing provision to address criticism of the poor quality of earlier HCV estates and
respond to criticism of the HCV’s policy of slum reclamation in the Interwar period. Each
estate comprises semi-detached, gabled houses arranged in mirror-image pairs with near
identical siting, orientation and setbacks. Some retain original low front fencing, typically
wire and steel posts. Houses in the Champion Road Estate were constructed of red or
clinker brick or stuccoed concrete walls. The West Newport Estate was the first to use the
“Fowler” method of prefabricated concrete construction using panels made at the HCV’s
plant at Holmesglen.
The homogeneous Interwar character of both precincts is enhanced by original concrete
roads and footpaths, mature trees in some streets, and centrally located areas of open space
to which some of the houses are orientated. These features demonstrate the efforts made by
the HCV to promote these areas as model housing estates.
This policy implements the recommendations of the Hobsons Bay Heritage Study Amended
20162014 relating to this precinct.
Objectives
To support the upgrading of these dwellings to meet modern lifestyles in a manner that is
compatible with their significance.
To retain the distinctive cultural heritage significance of these precincts which is derived
from:
 The homogeneous Interwar character that is demonstrated by uniform single storey
scale, semi-detached siting with identical front and side setbacks, brick (Champion
Road) or concrete (West Newport) construction, tiled gable roofs, and regular
subdivision pattern single dwellings) of the contributory heritage places;
 The strong associations with the Housing Commission of Victoria as early examples of
new responses to public housing in the post-war period;
 The original public realm elements including the concrete streets and footpaths,
parkland, which enhance the Interwar character of the estates;
 Regular shaped lots with average frontages of 12 metres, which create a distinctive
pattern of development.
LOCAL P LANNING POLICIES – CLAUSE 22.01
PAGE 15 OF 21
HOBSONS BAY PLANNING SCHEME
Policy
It is policy to encourage infill development that has:
 Respect for the single storey scale of the precinct;
 Identical building footprints that mirror the adjoining attached dwelling for the parts of
the dwelling visible from the street;
 Red or clinker style brick in Gem Street or Cerberus Crescent, or smooth rendered brick
or masonry construction in other streets for walls visible from the street;
 Simple gable roof forms of corrugated iron or terracotta tiles that mirror the adjoining
attached dwellings;
 Similar regular fenestration to the original houses in walls visible from the street;
 The provision of eaves.
It is policy that alterations and additions to existing dwellings should:
 Be single storey in scale however, double storey scale may be permitted if it is setback
behind the main ridgeline of the dwelling to minimise visibility from the street;
 Be sited at the rear of the existing building;
 Smooth rendered brick or masonry construction for walls visible from the street;
 Promote roof forms and material visible from the street that is compatible with the
heritage place;
 Avoid alterations to significant fabric of the facade or profile of the main roofline as
viewed from the street;
 Avoid windows in upper floor elevations facing the street;
 Promote ground floor windows visible from the street that are timber framed with the
same proportions as original windows.
22.01-9
17/07/2014
C101
Proposed C107
Newport And Spotswood Residential Heritage Precincts Policy
This policy applies to all land and heritage places within the Spotswood Residential
Heritage Precinct (HO30), Halls Farm Heritage Estate (HO11) Newport Estate Heritage
Precinct (HO23), and Grindlay’s Estate Heritage Precinct (HO10) including places
individually listed in the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay.
Policy basis
Speculators subdivided large areas of Newport and Spotswood in the late nineteenth
century. In contrast to the haphazard small-scale subdivision that occurred in North
Williamstown, the subdivisions in Newport and Spotswood were orderly grid subdivisions.
However, like many other speculative subdivisions of the time, they were not developed
until industrial expansion in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries transformed
farmland in the area and created a demand for housing for its workforce. The historic
pattern of development demonstrates the influence of the stations at Spotswood and
Newport with earlier development generally located in close proximity to the stations.
The streets include groups of late nineteenth and early twentieth century houses that range
from predominantly Victorian-era precincts such as Hope, Robert and George Streets in
Spotswood, to more predominantly Edwardian and Interwar enclaves in Newport. The
houses share common elements of scale, siting, materials and roof forms, which create
cohesive groups that are an important part of the historic character of this precinct. Some
streets retain early street detailing such as basalt kerb and channel and mature street trees,
which enhance and reinforce the historic character.
LOCAL P LANNING POLICIES – CLAUSE 22.01
PAGE 16 OF 21
HOBSONS BAY PLANNING SCHEME
This policy implements the recommendations of the Hobsons Bay Heritage Study Amended
20162014 relating to this precinct.
Objectives
To retain the distinctive cultural heritage significance of these precincts, which is derived
from:
 The traditional grid street layout, Victorian-era dwellings, and other elements such as
basalt kerb and channels and rear laneways that illustrate the nineteenth century origins
of these precincts;
 The strong associations of many early residents with the major industries in this area
that were key influences in the historic development of Newport and Spotswood during
the early twentieth century;
 The architectural diversity, which comprises villas and bungalows from the Victorian to
Interwar periods of generally uniform scale (predominantly single storey), siting
(detached), construction (predominantly horizontal weatherboard with pitched hipped
or gable roof) and subdivision pattern (single dwellings on regularly shaped similar
sized allotments) of residential buildings, which provide a unifying element throughout
the precincts;
 Regular shaped lots with frontages predominantly between 12-15 metres interspersed
with some narrower lots, which creates a distinctive pattern of development.
Policy
It is policy to encourage infill development that has:
 Respect for the single storey scale of the precinct. Double storeys may be appropriate if
it is setback to minimise visibility from the street;
 Detached siting parallel to the frontage;
 Symmetrical or asymmetrically designed double fronted forms;
 Contemporary interpretation of the wall materials found on heritage places in the same
street for walls visible from the street;
 Simple hipped corrugated iron roof form, except in streets with predominantly
Edwardian or Interwar character where more complex hipped and gable roof forms are
appropriate. Alternative roof materials may include slate in predominantly Victorian
streets or terracotta in predominantly Edwardian or Interwar streets;
 Rectangular, timber-framed and vertically orientated if single, or in a horizontal bank if
grouped, windows when visible from the street;
 Eaves and verandahs or porches in street elevations.
It is policy that alterations and additions to existing dwellings should:
 Be single storey scale when viewed from the street;
 Be sited to the rear of the existing building;
 Promote side setbacks that reflect the existing spacing between dwellings;
 Be the same, or a contemporary interpretation of the wall cladding of the existing
dwelling for walls visible from the street;
 Promote roof forms and materials compatible with the heritage place;
 Avoid alterations to significant fabric of the facade or profile of the main roofline as
viewed from the street;
LOCAL P LANNING POLICIES – CLAUSE 22.01
PAGE 17 OF 21
HOBSONS BAY PLANNING SCHEME
 Retain contributory features such as chimneys;
 Avoid windows in upper floor elevations facing the street;
 Promote ground floor windows visible from the street that are rectangular, timber
framed and vertically orientated if single, or in a horizontal bank if grouped.
22.01-10
17/07/2014
C101
Proposed C107
Newport Civic and Commercial Heritage Precinct Policy
This policy applies to all land included within Newport Civic & Commercial Heritage
Precinct (HO22) and Melbourne Road Commercial Heritage Precinct (HO20) including
places individually listed in the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay in the Melbourne Road
Commercial Heritage Precinct (HO20).
Policy basis
Newport shopping centre developed because of its proximity to the railway station,
originally known variously as ‘Geelong Junction’, ‘Greenwich’ or ‘Newport Junction’. The
1880’s was an era of speculative development and grand Victorian buildings including the
former Newport Hotel erected in 1887, the former Commercial Bank erected in 1888 and
the two storey Italianate shop at 15-17 Mason Street, erected in 1891 illustrate the
optimism for the future development of this area.
The recession of the 1890’s meant that development temporarily ceased, until expansion of
industries in the early part of the twentieth century led to increased residential development
and consequently, expansion of this shopping centre. Most of the development of the centre
therefore occurred within the Edwardian and Interwar period, which included the
construction of the Edwardian brick station complex in 1912 to cater for the growing
population.
The Newport Civic and Commercial precinct today comprises a number of individually
notable Victorian-era buildings interspersed amongst groups of Edwardian and Interwarera shops, which share common siting, scale, and use of materials, which create cohesive
groupings that contribute to the character and identity of this centre.
This policy implements the recommendations of the Hobsons Bay Heritage Study Amended
20162014 relating to this precinct.
Objectives
To conserve and enhance the historic character and amenity of Newport that is an integral
part of its identity and enhances its appeal as an important local retail centre.
To retain the distinctive cultural heritage significance of this precinct which is derived
from:
 The strong associations between the historic development of this precinct and the
development of the railway, and later, the expansion of major industries in the area
during the early twentieth century;
 The uniform Interwar era shops of single storey scale, attached siting with roofs
concealed behind parapets in Melbourne Road (north of Mason Street);
 The fine examples of predominantly Edwardian and Interwar commercial buildings of
similar scale, face brick or rendered masonry construction, attached siting, and roofs
concealed behind decorative parapets that give this centre its unique historic character
and identity;
 The rare surviving examples of early shopfronts and other detailing such as early or
original signage;
LOCAL P LANNING POLICIES – CLAUSE 22.01
PAGE 18 OF 21
HOBSONS BAY PLANNING SCHEME
 The visual prominence and setting of historic landmark buildings such as the Former
Masonic Temple, Newport Station complex, Newport Hotel, and the former Bank of
Australasia. Significant vistas along Melbourne Road to the Masonic Temple and the
Newport Hotel remain.
Policy
It is policy to encourage infill development that has:
 Respect for the double storey scale fronting Hall Street and Melbourne Road (south of
North Road). Development above two storeys should be setback from the main facade
to minimise visibility from Hall Street;
 Respect for the single storey scale fronting Melbourne Road (north of Mason Street).
Upper storeys should be setback to minimise visibility from Melbourne Road and
protect the vista to the Masonic Temple;
 Attached siting with zero frontage setbacks;
 Face or rendered brick to the facade facing Hall Street or Melbourne Road, and a
contemporary interpretation of traditional building materials and forms at the rear of
properties;
 Hipped roof forms concealed behind parapets, with hipped or skillion roofs at the rear;
 Upper floor windows in facades facing Hall Street or Melbourne Road should be
rectangular with vertical proportions if single or a horizontal bank, if grouped;
 Upper floor facade articulation should incorporate contemporary interpretations of
traditional building forms in the precinct such as projecting window bays, or recessed
balconies;
It is policy that alterations and additions to existing dwellings should:
 Incorporate contemporary interpretations of building styles and forms found in the
precinct in facades facing Hall Street or Melbourne Road;
 Promote upper floor additions that are setback to minimise the visual impact upon Hall
Street and Melbourne Road;
 Avoid separations between buildings at the front;
 Incorporate the traditional use of buildings as retail or commercial at the street frontage
and residential above or behind.
It is policy that:
 Early examples of painted or other types of advertising signage are conserved.
22.01-11
17/07/2014
C101
Proposed C107
Industrial Heritage Places Policy
This policy applies to all land zoned Industrial 1, Industrial 3 or Special Use that is
included within the Heritage Overlay.
Policy basis
Since the mid-nineteenth century, a dominant theme in the development of Hobsons Bay
has been the growth of industry. Some of Victoria’s most significant industrial heritage is
now found within the city. Industries associated with meat and meat processing,
engineering and fuels including coal, gas, electricity and petroleum have been dominant in
Hobsons Bay over a long period of time. Many industries have been important not only
locally, but also to the Victorian and national economy. Significantly, early industries such
as the railway workshop and shipyard provided plentiful and steady employment for local
LOCAL P LANNING POLICIES – CLAUSE 22.01
PAGE 19 OF 21
HOBSONS BAY PLANNING SCHEME
residents. While many large industries have disappeared, industry in Altona, particularly at
the petro-chemical complex, continues to employ a significant proportion of the labour
force resident in the area.
The Hobsons Bay Heritage Study Amended 20162014 has identified a wealth of industrial
heritage in the area, including places such as the former Commonwealth Oil Refinery
complex in Altona North, that are no longer used for their original purpose and have been
redeveloped, to complexes such as the former Melbourne Glass Bottle works (now ACI)
that continue processes commenced more than a century ago.
The conservation of industrial heritage places presents specific management issues, as
it is often the use of the site that is of primary historical significance. While fabric such
as buildings or plant contributes to the significance of industrial heritage places by
illustrating development over time, the on-going replacement and upgrading of this
fabric is often an integral part of the operation of the use. .
This policy implements the recommendations of the Hobsons Bay Heritage Study Amended
20162014 relating to this precinct.
Objectives
To ensure the continued viability of industrial heritage places for the uses and processes
historically carried out on the site as an essential part of their significance and
conservation.
To increase awareness about the importance of industrial heritage in the municipality.
To ensure that heritage issues are given appropriate consideration at an early stage when
making decisions about the future use and development of industrial sites.
To retain the distinctive cultural heritage significance of industrial heritage places which is
derived from:
 The traditional and on-going use of industrial heritage places over a long period;
 The important influence of the industrial heritage places on the economic and social
development of the city;
 The sheer size and extent of nineteenth century industries in Newport and Spotswood,
which demonstrates not only their local economic importance, but also their importance
to the economy of Victoria;
 The probable national significance of the Newport, Spotswood and North Altona region
as one of the most historically important centres in relation to the development of the
petroleum and petrochemical industries in Australia;
 The surviving examples of early industrial building types, plant and equipment;
 The associated infrastructure such as railways, pipe-lines, roads and wharves that are
essential in understanding the complex historical interrelationships that occurred in the
development of industries (particularly the petroleum and petrochemical industries) in
the area.
Policy
Where a permit is required by the Heritage Overlay, it is policy that applications for
development should have regard to:
 The continued viability of the historic use of the site;
 The balance between achievement of conservation objectives and economic viability,
and occupational health and safety;
 The conservation of fabric of primary significance unless the fabric has been made
redundant and is to be replaced by new buildings, plant or equipment;
LOCAL P LANNING POLICIES – CLAUSE 22.01
PAGE 20 OF 21
HOBSONS BAY PLANNING SCHEME
 The retention of fabric of primary significance that is longer used in-situ if there is not
an immediate need to remove or relocate it;
 Keeping an appropriate record of any significant fabric that is removed or demolished
and is made to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
When a use is discontinued and a site is redeveloped, new development including
subdivision should have regard to:
 The retention of as much significant fabric as possible;
 The creative interpretation of the history of the heritage place through the design or
layout of new development including buildings, subdivision, landscaping, movement
systems and public art;
 The incorporation of a publicly visible historic marker, which provides the history of
the site and may include text, images or maps to the satisfaction of the Responsible
Authority.
Decision Guidelines
It is policy that before deciding on an application the Responsible Authority consider, as
appropriate:
 Whether the proposed buildings, works or demolition will support the viability of the
historic industrial use carried out on the site;
 Whether there is an opportunity for redundant equipment to remain in-situ as historic
evidence or for interpretation;
 Whether the proposed interpretation will provide adequate information about the
historic use and development of the site.
LOCAL P LANNING POLICIES – CLAUSE 22.01
PAGE 21 OF 21
HOBSONS BAY PLANNING SCHEME
11/12/2008
C62(Part 1)
Proposed C107
SCHEDULE 2 TO THE SPECIAL USE ZONE
Shown on the planning scheme map as SUZ2
PETROLEUM REFINERY AREA
Purpose
To provide for the operation and modernisation of the petroleum refining industry in a
manner that does not affect the safety and amenity of nearby residential areas.
To provide for the orderly and proper development of the area and for adequate
landscaping to reduce the visual impact of the refinery.
1.0
Table of uses
11/12/2008
C62(Part 1)
Section 1 - Permit not required
USE
Apiculture
CONDITION
Must meet the requirements of the Apiary
Code of Practice, May 1997.
Car park
Industry
Must be a petroleum refinery in accordance
with Clause 2.0 of this schedule.
Mineral exploration
Mining
Must meet the requirements of Clause
52.08-2.
Minor utility installation
Natural systems
Railway
Road
Search for stone
Must not be costeaning or bulk sampling
Service station
Section 2 - Permit required
USE
CONDITION
Mail centre
Utility installation (other than Minor
utility installation)
Animal keeping
Intensive animal husbandry
SPECIAL USE ZONE - SCHEDULE 2
Must meet the requirements listed in the
Code of Practice for the Welfare of Horses
PAGE 1 OF 5
HOBSONS BAY PLANNING SCHEME
Section 3 - Prohibited
USE
Dry cleaner
Laundromat
Rural industry
Any use not in Section 1 or 2
2.0
19/01/2006
VC37
Use of land
For the purpose of this schedule a petroleum refinery is defined as an industry using plant,
equipment and facilities for the conversion of crude oil and other feed stocks into finished
and intermediate petroleum products and by-products. This includes facilities for the
receipt of crude oil and other feed stocks, facilities for the storage of crude oils,
intermediate and finished products and by-products, pumping, pipeline and distribution
facilities, units for the removal and control of impurities and by-products, waste treatment
facilities, utilities including steam raising and electrical generating equipment, control
rooms, laboratories, research facilities, administration, warehousing, maintenance, training
and amenity buildings and facilities and other associated works.
Land may be used as a petroleum refinery provided that the land south of Kororoit Creek
Road and to the west of the 3 metre contour (Australian Height Datum) is maintained as a
conservation area to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
The use of the land for a petroleum refinery is exempt from the standard and reduced
parking requirements of Clause 52.06 if parking is provided on the site to the satisfaction of
the responsible authority.
Application requirements
An application to use land must be accompanied by the following information, as
appropriate:
 The purpose of the use and the types of processes to be utilised.
 The type and quantity of goods to be stored, processed or produced.
 How land not required for immediate use is to be maintained.
 Whether a Works Approval or Waste Discharge Licence is required from the
Environment Protection Authority.
 Whether a licence under the Dangerous Goods Act 1985 is required.
 The likely effects, if any, on the neighbourhood, including:

Noise levels.

Air-borne emissions.

Emissions to land or water.

Traffic, including the hours of delivery and despatch.

Light spill or glare.
SPECIAL USE ZONE - SCHEDULE 2
PAGE 2 OF 5
HOBSONS BAY PLANNING SCHEME
Decision guidelines
Before deciding on an application to use land, the responsible authority must consider, as
appropriate:
 The State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework,
including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.
 The effect that the use may have on nearby existing or proposed residential areas or
other uses which are sensitive to industrial off-site effects, having regard to any
comments or directions of the referral authorities.
 The effect that nearby industries may have on the proposed use.
 The drainage of the land.
 The availability of and connection to services.
 The effect of traffic to be generated on roads.
 The interim use of those parts of the land not required for the proposed use.
3.0
Subdivision
19/01/2006
VC37
Exemptions
An application is exempt from the notice requirements of Section 52(1)(a), (b) and (d), the
decision requirements of Section 64(1), (2) and (3) and the appeal rights of Section 82(1) of
the Act. This exemption does not apply to land within 30 metres of land (not a road) which
is in a residential zone or Business 5 Zone, land used for a hospital or school or land in a
Public Acquisition Overlay to be acquired for a hospital or school.
Decision guidelines
Before deciding on an application to subdivide land, the responsible authority must
consider, as appropriate:
 The State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework,
including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.
 Any natural or cultural values on or near the land.
 Streetscape character.
 Landscape treatment.
 Interface with non-industrial areas.
 Whether the development would prejudice the continued operation of the petroleum
refinery.
4.0
19/01/2006
VC37
Proposed C107
Buildings and works
Permit requirement
A permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works.
This does not apply to a building or works which:
SPECIAL USE ZONE - SCHEDULE 2
PAGE 3 OF 5
HOBSONS BAY PLANNING SCHEME
 Provide or alter plumbing and electrical services.
 Involve the minor rearrangement of car parking areas and landscaping provided that
these areas are not diminished.
 Rearrange, alter or renew plant if the areas of plant external to existing buildings is not
increased.
 Are a temporary shed or structure, not exceeding 100 square metres in floor area, which
is outside driveway, car parking, loading or landscaping areas.
 Any works carried out by a public authority or a municipal council in association with
the development of new plant or buildings.
 Comply with a direction or licence under the Dangerous Goods Act 1985 or a Waste
Discharge Licence, Works Approval or Pollution Abatement Notice under the
Environment Protection Act 1970.
Other exemptions are listed in Clause 62.01
Application requirements
An application to construct a building or construct or carry out works must be accompanied
by the following information, as appropriate:
 A plan drawn to scale which shows:

The boundaries and dimensions of the site.

Adjoining roads.

Relevant ground levels.

The layout of existing and proposed buildings and works.

Driveways and vehicle parking and loading areas.

Proposed landscape areas.

External storage and waste treatment areas.
 Elevation drawings to scale which show the colour and materials of all buildings and
works.
 Construction details of all drainage works, driveways and vehicle parking and loading
areas.
 A landscape layout which includes the description of vegetation to be planted, the
surfaces to be constructed, a site works specification and the method of preparing,
draining, watering and maintaining the landscape area. The layout is to include
landscape buffers along Millers Road and Kororoit Creek Road frontages and all other
boundaries of the refinery.
 The type of use and the process to be employed.
 Dust control, drainage and maintenance of areas not required for immediate use.
 The type and quantity of goods to be stored and whether a licence is required under the
Dangerous Goods Act 1985.
Exemptions
An application is exempt from the notice requirements of Section 52(1)(a), (b) and (d), the
decision requirements of Section 64(1), (2) and (3) and the appeal rights of Section 82(1) of
the Act. This exemption does not apply to land within 30 metres of land (not a road) which
SPECIAL USE ZONE - SCHEDULE 2
PAGE 4 OF 5
HOBSONS BAY PLANNING SCHEME
is in a residential zone or Business 5 Zone, land used for a hospital or school or land in a
Public Acquisition Overlay to be acquired for a hospital or school.
Decision guidelines
Before deciding on an application to construct a building or construct or carry out works,
the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate:
 The State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework,
including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.
 The views of the Environment Protection Authority, the Department of Natural
Resources and Environment and the Minister administering the Dangerous Goods Act.
 The adequacy of information supplied on the type of use and the processes to be
employed.
 Drainage of the land
 The views of a relevant waterway management authority constituted under the Water
Act 1989 or any other Act about any proposed development within the flood plain of
the Kororoit Creek.
 Availability of services.
 Effect of traffic on surrounding roads.
 Layout of the site and design of buildings including methods of minimising the visual
impact of the refinery on:

nearby residential areas.

Kororoit Creek Road.

Millers Road.

Kororoit Creek.

Altona Coastal Park.

Cherry Lake.
 Layout of the site and design of buildings including:

The relationship of the buildings and works to the street and adjoining properties.

The set backs from Millers Road and Kororoit Creek Road.
 Access and egress, car parking, access roads and loading bay layout.
5.0
Advertising signs
19/01/2006
VC37
This zone is in Category 2.
SPECIAL USE ZONE - SCHEDULE 2
PAGE 5 OF 5
HOBSONS BAY PLANNING SCHEME
14/03/2013
VC85
Proposed C107
SCHEDULE TO THE HERITAGE OVERLAY
The requirements of this overlay apply to both the heritage place and its associated land.
PS
Map
Ref
Heritage Place
External
Paint
Controls
Apply?
Internal
Alteration
Controls
Apply?
Tree
Controls
Apply?
Yes
No
Yes
Outbuildings
or fences
which are not
exempt under
Clause 43.01-3
Included
on the
Victorian
Heritage
Register
under the
Heritage
Act 1995?
Prohibited
uses may
be
permitted?
Name of
Incorporated
Plan under
Clause 43.01-2
Aboriginal
heritage
place?
Yes
No
street
trees only
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
street
trees only
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Heritage Precincts listed alphabetically by
name
of
precinct
note - precincts generally contain a mix of
contributory and non-contributory buildings –
refer to Citation in Hobsons Bay Heritage
Study for details.
HO1
Cecil Street Heritage Precinct
Cecil Street, Williamstown
HO2
Cox’s Garden Heritage Precinct
Cox’s Garden, Williamstown
HO3
Dover Road and John Street Heritage No
Precinct
33-35 and 36-44 Dover Road and 3-37 and
4-32 John Street, Williamstown
HO4
Electra Street Heritage Precinct
Electra Street, Williamstown
HO5
Esplanade Foreshore Heritage Precinct
Esplanade, Williamstown
HO6
Esplanade Residential Heritage Precinct
4-20 Esplanade, Williamstown
HERITAGE OVERLAY – SCHEDULE
PAGE 1 OF 32
HOBSONS BAY PLANNING SCHEME
PS
Map
Ref
HO198
Heritage Place
External
Paint
Controls
Apply?
Internal
Alteration
Controls
Apply?
Tree
Controls
Apply?
Outbuildings
or fences
which are not
exempt under
Clause 43.01-3
Included
on the
Victorian
Heritage
Register
under the
Heritage
Act 1995?
Prohibited
uses may
be
permitted?
Name of
Incorporated
Plan under
Clause 43.01-2
Aboriginal
heritage
place?
House
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
471 Melbourne Road, Newport
HO199
House
481 Melbourne Road, Newport
HO200
Spotswood Railway Workshops Complex No
(former)
561-569 Melbourne Road, Spotswood
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
HO201
Melbourne-Geelong Railway Bridge and No
Stone Ford over the Laverton Creek
intersection Merton Street and Railway
Avenue, Altona Meadows
No
No
No
No
No
No
HO202
Administration Building
Standard
Vacuum
Refining
Complex (former)
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Company
351- 381 Millers Road, Altona
HO203
Main Outfall Sewer (Hobsons Bay Section)
Millers Road to Princes Highway, Brooklyn
-
-
-
-
Yes
No
Ref
No
H1932
No
HO204
MMBW Brooklyn Pumping Station
87 Millers Road, Altona North
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
HO205
Fort Gellibrand
Morris Street, Point Gellibrand, Williamstown
-
-
-
-
Yes
No
Ref
No
H1811
No
HO206
Williamstown Tennis Club Pavilion
73 Morris Street, Williamstown
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
There is no HO207
HERITAGE OVERLAY – SCHEDULE
PAGE 22 OF 32
W
GV
D
IN
ST
R
SO
RD
ST
RD
HOBSONS BAY PLANNING SCHEME
PA
CR
H
OT
PR
ALLAN
YA
RS
BR
CR
WINDSO
MILLS
Paisley
R
LEY
ROSS
GV
AV
EY CR
EL
HATHER
MILLE
N
RD
RK
H
BE
IN
Mc
S
TO
GILLIGA
N
Station
RD
RD
ROIT
CRE
EK
0
100
200
RD
KOR
O
RD
MILLE
LEGEND
GANTO
RS
R AC E C
OURSE
N
CT
metres
Part of Planning Scheme Map 9HO
Heritage Overlay (HO202)
AMENDMENT C107
| Planning Mapping Services |
| Planning Information Services |
| Planning |
002
Heritage Place Name
Address
Standard Vacuum Refining Co. Complex (Former)
351-381 Millers Road, Altona North
Heritage Overlay No.
Heritage Precinct(s)
HO202
Not applicable
Significance
Local
Style & Type
Industry - Oil Refinery
Significant Dates
1949-53
Designer
Stephenson & Turner
Builder
Braun Transworld
Statement of Significance
What is Significant?
The Standard Vacuum Refining Co complex (former), now Mobil Oil Refinery, comprising the
buildings and plant generally constructed between 1949-60, at 351-381 Millers Road, Altona North.
How is it Significant?
The Standard Vacuum Refining Co complex is of local historic, social, technical and aesthetic
significance to the City of Hobsons Bay.
Why is it Significant?
Historically, it is significant for its strong associations with the development of the oil industry in
Australia as one of the oldest continuously operating oil refineries in the country. It is also significant
as a major refinery and office complex that illustrates the immense industrial expansion of the City
and Victoria in the post World War 2 period. The size of the complex had a significant impact on the
economy of the State of Victoria and led to the establishment of a petro-chemical complex within this
area with a number of associated firms such as Australian Carbon Black by the 1960s. The complex
has associations with Standard-Vacuum Oil and later Mobil Oil who have played important roles in
the development of the petrochemical industry in Victoria. Parts of the complex have associations
with the important architectural firm of Stephenson & Turner. (AHC criteria A4 and H1)
Socially, it significant for its strong associations with the local community as one of the first major
industries in the Altona area and one of the largest employers over a long period. It is also significant
for its associations with the development of the labour movement in Australia through the introduction
of the concept of collective bargaining techniques, which were first used at this site. (AHC criteria D2
and G1)
Technically, it is significant for early plant and equipment such as the Thermofor Catalytic Cracking
Plant, which is unique in the State. (AHC criterion F1)
Hobsons Bay Heritage Study Amended - 2016- Volume 3 – Heritage Precinct and Place Citations
Part 2 – Heritage Places – 351-381 Millers Road, Altona North
Page 1 Page
of 6 669 of 1082
Aesthetically, although altered, the c.1955 office block is significant as a good example of modernist
design that illustrates the progressive nature of the Standard-Vacuum company and investment
made in the establishment of the complex at the time. (AHC criterion E1)
History
Specific history
Construction of the Standard-Vacuum refinery complex at Altona North was commenced in 1946 and
production commenced by July 1949. The 1950s was a boom time in the oil industry. In 1953 the
total market for refined projects was around 43 million barrels, of which only 7 million were refined
locally. By 1958, this figure had jumped to 71 million barrels, of which 63 million were refined locally.
Consequently, Standard Vacuum made plans to extend the refinery soon after it came on stream.
(Allom Lovell 2002:25-26)
A Californian corporation, Braun Transworld, was contracted to build the new plant along with its
engineering techniques. Early in 1953, it negotiated agreements with twenty unions and 1700
workers, which entitled employees to a weekly wage of £1 higher than award rates. Bonuses were
also paid. Consequently, work began on the enlarged refinery in 1952 and was completed in a
remarkable 22 months.
The area covered by the new facility was 340 acres and at the same time the company also
reclaimed four and a half acres of land and rebuilt the Breakwater Pier at Williamstown for delivery of
crude oil to be piped to the refinery. Four huge transit tanks were also erected at Williamstown.
The expanded refinery was opened on 4 April 1955 in ‘lavish style’ at a ceremony attended by over
1200 guest presided over by the Prime Minister, RG Menzies. Originally estimated at £7.5 million, the
final cost of the expansion was subsequently increased to a massive £20 million. In telling
comparison, Menzies pointed out that not long before the war, that had been the size of the total
federal budget. (Priestly 1988:218)
Although the refinery included 'a million feet of pipe with 60,000 welded joints, ... 300 miles of
electrical wiring, six miles of paved roads, five acres of concrete paving and 19 buildings' in pride of
place was the Thermofor Catalytic Cracking Plant, a towering landmark, 268 feet high.
A number of new office and administration buildings designed by Stephenson & Turner, were
constructed facing Millers Road and Kororoit Creek Road. The striking modern design of the two
storey administration building (now the Pegasus Centre) at the south west corner of Millers Road and
Kororoit Creek Road was cited in the RVIA 1956 Olympics guide to the State's architecture as an
example of the industrial expansion of the post WW2 era. The new amenities block included a full
cafeteria and an auditorium seating four hundred which was suitable for plays, concerts and film
(Priestly 1988:217)
The Williamstown Chronicle described the ‘dream standards’ of accommodation in the new
administration block, which was air-conditioned and heated with natural light filtered by tinted glass,
visor shade and outside aluminium louvers. Priestly (1988:217) observes that:
It was Collins Street comfort set in sweeping plains, amoung the best mushrooming country near
Melbourne.
The noted landscape gardener, John Stevens, was involved with the landscape design of this
complex, as well as the Shell Oil Refinery in Geelong. (Hendry, 2000)
The expansion of the plant allow Standard-Vacuum to vastly extend the refinery's product range into
motor vehicle fuels and, in 1956, it produced Australia's first locally made aviation gasoline.
The size of the complex and its workforce led to the opening in 1953 of a dedicated railway station at
a location, quite near to the old Williamstown Racecourse station, which was dismantled in 1951. The
Standard Vacuum Platform as it was originally known was built initially for the use of employees of
the new refinery. Its name was soon changed to Mobiltown and it was available to general
passengers from 1958.
Other key periods in the development of the plant include:
 In 1958, Mobil announced the construction of a major petrochemical plant next to the Altona
Refinery in Melbourne that produced its first products for sale in June 1961.
 The discovery of vast reserves of crude oil and gas in the Bass Strait in the early 1960s changed
the Australian refining industry dramatically, as all companies changed to processing the locallyPage 670 of 1082
Hobsons Bay Heritage Study Amended - 2016- Volume 3 – Heritage Precinct and Place Citations
Part 2 – Heritage Places – 351-381 Millers Road, Altona North
Page 2 of 6
produced oil instead of importing their raw materials. In 1970 further expansion and modification
of the Altona Refinery near Melbourne was completed, making it possible for Bass Strait crude to
be processed in the plant.
The refinery attracted the beginnings of Australia's most significant petro-chemical conglomerate.
First came Australian Carbon-Black (now occupied largely by Cabot Australasia), which soon
became noted for the carefully landscaped and maintained gardens in its grounds. The following year
the Altona Petro-Chemical Company commenced producing ethylene and butadiene, materials used
in the production of plastics and rubber. Other major companies followed: Australian Synthetic
Rubber, BASF Australia, Commercial Polymers, Dow Chemical, BF Goodrich Chemical and Hoechst
Australia, forming the Altona Petrochemical Complex. The companies operated independently, but
were able to take advantage of being located close to each other in terms of using raw materials and
sharing some services. The complex expanded over the next 20 years to meet increases in local and
export demand.
The complex now makes a vital contribution to Victoria's economy. It is one of Australia's largest
industrial centres and is the biggest single employer in the Western suburbs, representing 1.3% to
2.2% of the state's manufacturing industry labour force. The complex accounts for 44% of the output
of the basic chemicals sector of the Victorian economy and 3.3% of the total Victorian manufacturing
industry input.1 Beyond those directly employed by the complex, many other jobs in the state stem
from its activities. For every job provided in the complex, another 1.6 jobs are made available
throughout the Victorian economy. 2Employment opportunities directly provided by the Altona
Chemical Complex amount to about 9% of the western region's total labour force and about 23% of
the manufacturing employment in the region. 3
After 1960 the refinery became known as PRA (Petrol Refineries Australia) and is now referred to as
the Mobil Altona North Refinery. Mobil has now embarked on a long term program to modernise the
Altona Refinery, including the installation of a new catalytic cracking unit, to help make the refinery
among Australia's most efficient. The modernisation will equip the refinery with new, ultra-modern
process equipment designed to meet increasingly stringent environmental and product quality
requirements and providing the flexibility to handle a wide range of crude oil feedstocks' { Mobil
Australia}.
History of Mobil Oil Australia
Mobil was the first oil company in Australia. It began as Vacuum Oil, opening the Queen Street,
Melbourne, branch in February 1895, less than 30 years after Vacuum first started operations in the
United States. Vacuum Oil's first salesman in Australia, Mr David Clarke, sold the company's first
barrel of lubricating oil to a gold mining operation at Eaglehawk, near Bendigo, on his first day in the
job.
In March 1904, Vacuum Oil was officially incorporated under Victorian Law as a proprietary company,
and in 1906 the company issued Australia's first ever chart of "Recommendations to Motorists"
covering about 200 makes of car. By 1908, Vacuum was growing rapidly and merged with the
Colonial Oil Co, a company marketing kerosene and motor spirit, adding to Vacuum's specialty
lubricant products. In 1916, Vacuum introduced its "Plume" and "Laurel" brands to the Australian
market and a year later brought its first 100 gallon, horse drawn tank wagon into service.
As motor vehicles became more popular in Australia, Vacuum expanded its operations. In 1924
Vacuum opened its first bulk petroleum products terminal at Pulpit Point in Sydney and took delivery
of its first imported bulk oil products cargo, a 1.5 million gallon shipment carried from the United
States by the tanker "HT Harper". A decade later, Vacuum introduced "Ethyl", Australia's first Super
grade motor spirit. Around the same time in the US, Vacuum's parent company, Vacuum Oil Inc,
merged with the Standard Oil Company of New York to become Socony Vacuum, then Socony Mobil
that ultimately became Mobil Corporation.
Socony Mobil introduced the Flying Red Horse (Pegasus) logo. It appeared in Australia in 1939 and
became one of Australia's best recognised corporate symbols. In October 1946, Mobil began
constructing the Altona oil refinery. The refinery commenced operations in June 1949, initially making
lubricating oil and bitumen from imported crude oil.
In 1973 Mobil Oil Australia announced its return to the production of lubricating oils in Australia and
Page 671 of 1082
1Shire of Altona (1965) Altona, A Good Place to Live and Work (pamphlet)
2Thomas Mandeville (1985) The Impact of the Altona Chemical Complex on the Victorian Economy (pamphlet)
3Mandeville, op cit.
Hobsons Bay Heritage Study Amended - 2016- Volume 3 – Heritage Precinct and Place Citations
Part 2 – Heritage Places – 351-381 Millers Road, Altona North
Page 3 of 6
commenced construction of a lubricating oil refinery alongside the existing Adelaide fuels product
refinery. The lubricating oil refinery, the most modern one in Australia, opened in 1976.
In 1985, Mobil Oil Australia negotiated a major asset swap with BP Australia in which Mobil vacated
the Perth retail market in exchange for acquiring a large portion of BP's South Australian, Victorian
and New South Wales retail market.
Two years later, Mobil completed a major upgrade of its Yarraville bulk fuels terminal in Melbourne to
create the most efficient and technologically advanced petroleum products terminal in Australia.
In late 1990, MOA announced the purchase of Esso Australia's refining and marketing operations.
This gave MOA 100 per cent ownership of Petroleum Refineries (Australia) Pty Ltd, the company that
operated both the Altona and Adelaide refineries. Completed in January 1991, the acquisition lifted
Mobil to second place among the petroleum marketing and refining companies in Australia.
In December 1995 Mobil re-entered the West Australian market when it purchased the service station
network and wholesale business of Amgas. A program of investment and expansion in Western
Australia will take place over the next few years through upgrading the chain and building new sites.
Description
The complex includes the following buildings:
 The refinery itself comprising various equipment, pipes, tanks and stacks, all set out on a
rectilinear grid between the railway, Millers Road and Kororoit Creek Road. It includes the 248
feet high Thermofor Catalytic Cracking Plant (now decommissioned), which is thought to be the
last vertical catalytic cracker in Australia.
 The auditorium, canteen and locker building, located at the north-east corner of Kororoit Creek
Road and Millers Road, which has a flat roof, is clad with cream bricks and has aluminium
framed windows with green glass panels. This is one of the buildings designed by Stephenson &
Turner.
 The former office/laboratory building (now the medical centre), which is a concrete block with a
hip roof building facing Millers Road.
 The former Administration buildings, designed by Stephenson & Turner, on the south west corner
of the Millers-Kororoit Creek Roads intersection. This building was pictured in the guide to
architecture in Victoria, which was produced by the RVIA for the 1956 Olympics. This building
has since been changed by a general renovation in recent times.
 A tank farm on the south side of Kororoit Creek Road. The number of tanks has been greatly
expanded since the 1940s.
The plant has also been expanded, with some additional land occupied to the east, but the original
plant has not been radically changed. An aerial view of the site titled “January 1955 The new refinery
already looks complete” shows little change from recent aerial views. (Priestley 1988:206)
External Condition
Good
External Integrity
Substantially intact/some intrusions, with the exception of the administration and cafeteria.
Context
Set in an open industrial landscape which is complemented by the Kemcor Australia (now Qenos)
plant further to the west, separated by Cherry Lake.
Page 672 of 1082
Comparative Analysis
Hobsons Bay Heritage Study Amended - 2016- Volume 3 – Heritage Precinct and Place Citations
Part 2 – Heritage Places – 351-381 Millers Road, Altona North
Page 4 of 6
The integrity of the plant is high to its 1940s-50s development stages and thus it is perhaps the most
complete complex of its kind in the region from this key era. Another example is the Kemcor Australia
(now Qenos) plant which has many new elements.
Thematic Context
Principal Australian Historical Theme(s)
Utilising mineral resources, Extracting oil & gas
Associations
Standard-Vacuum Refining Company (Australia) Ltd., Mobil Refining Australia Pty Ltd, Stephenson &
Turner
Recommendations
Statutory protection
Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme:
Yes
Heritage Victoria Register:
No
Register of the National Estate:
No
National Trust Register:
Recommended
Management objectives
Conserve elements that contribute to the significance of the place and ensure that new development
is sympathetic to the historic character of the place in accordance with the relevant articles and
conservation principles, processes and practice set out in the Burra Charter. Refer to the relevant
Heritage local policy at Clause 22.01 of the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme.
References
Hobsons Bay City Council, Hobsons Bay Thematic Environmental History, 2003
Graeme Butler & Associates (2001) Altona, Laverton and Newport Districts Heritage Study
Strahan, L 1994 At the Edge of the Centre. The History of Williamstown. p.378
Priestley, S (1998) Altona. A Long View pp.206-07, 216-19
Standard Vacuum Refining Company (Australia) Ltd. 1955. Altona Story (SVRC)
Mobil Australia web site history, www.mobil.com.au.
Hendry, M in Australian Garden History V.12 N.1 (July/August 2000) p.19
Note- new reference to be included once updated report recieved
Page 673 of 1082
Hobsons Bay Heritage Study Amended - 2016- Volume 3 – Heritage Precinct and Place Citations
Part 2 – Heritage Places – 351-381 Millers Road, Altona North
Page 5 of 6
Additional Images
The image on the cover is an overall view of the complex. Additional images are provided below.
Above: c.1955 view showing Thermofor
Catalytic Cracker in centre. Below: Cafeteria
Administrative building (Pegasus Centre) designed
by Stephenson & Turner and constructed c.1955
Hobsons Bay Heritage Study Amended - 2016- Volume 3 – Heritage Precinct and Place Citations
Part 2 – Heritage Places – 351-381 Millers Road, Altona North
Page 6 of 6
Page 674 of 1082